User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 10:22:29 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
nah.... lets make some of these pipe hitters instead http://i.imgur.com/2nOiiZY.jpg http://i.imgur.com/OAVqVZr.jpg http://i.imgur.com/UGswgty.jpg Winner. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 10:23:11 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Please show me on a map what parts of Iraq you could shell w/ a reactivated 16" gun from a battleship & currently developed 16" projectiles. Feel free to use any navigational charts you wish. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Think about it this way... with all the money spent on the GWOT, new fighters, submarines*, and the DDX... we could have brought back a battleship or two JUST to shell parts of Iraq in 2003 and no one would have even noticed it in the budget.
*look how much we've spent to build subs that get scrapped before even being finished. Please show me on a map what parts of Iraq you could shell w/ a reactivated 16" gun from a battleship & currently developed 16" projectiles. Feel free to use any navigational charts you wish. Google Maps -- Faw |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 10:25:22 PM EDT
[#3]
Battleships have been rendered obsolete by sharks... with LASERS!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 10:27:13 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Please show me on a map what parts of Iraq you could shell w/ a reactivated 16" gun from a battleship & currently developed 16" projectiles. Feel free to use any navigational charts you wish. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Think about it this way... with all the money spent on the GWOT, new fighters, submarines*, and the DDX... we could have brought back a battleship or two JUST to shell parts of Iraq in 2003 and no one would have even noticed it in the budget. *look how much we've spent to build subs that get scrapped before even being finished. Please show me on a map what parts of Iraq you could shell w/ a reactivated 16" gun from a battleship & currently developed 16" projectiles. Feel free to use any navigational charts you wish.  eta- Nostolgia... http://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/05/world/war-gulf-overview-us-battleship-shells-iraqis-bunkers-kuwait-coast.html Powerful guns aboard the battleship Missouri lobbed 2,700-pound shells against Iraqi command bunkers near the Kuwaiti coastline.. ...military officials said the blasts Sunday night could be felt several miles from the targets along the Kuwaiti coast. Mmmm boner alert... I've been close to tons of explosions. Never any big enough to feel from miles. (the bursting charges aren't that big either) |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 10:31:21 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Winner. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
nah.... lets make some of these pipe hitters instead http://i.imgur.com/2nOiiZY.jpg http://i.imgur.com/OAVqVZr.jpg http://i.imgur.com/UGswgty.jpg Winner. if we are going there.... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 10:34:35 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryYes please. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 10:35:40 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bring back Heavy Cruisers!!! 
http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Rifts/Rifts-Earth-Vehicles/REEF_Florida/CA-139_Sea_Witch-02.png I got to tour the Salem. You don't realize how big some of that equipment is until you're standing next to a massive boiler or steam turbine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 10:35:46 PM EDT
[#8]
Not this shit again. The crews for the MK7 turrets alone would be more than the entire compliment for a Burke. Not to mention you would probably need to update the secondary battery to the 5"/54 or 5"/62 guns, upgrade the TCM box launchers to a VLS system, and redesign the entire engineering structure of the ship to support shielding/distance for your reacturz bro.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 10:39:22 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryI came.
Needs 2 more turrets though. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 10:40:49 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Too slow. 28 knots is a joke. I've been on cargo ships that could run faster than that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Too slow. 28 knots is a joke. I've been on cargo ships that could run faster than that. Did the cargo ships have to lug around many extra tons of armor/armament? 28kts is fairly quick for what it is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 10:41:22 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not this shit again. The crews for the MK7 turrets alone would be more than the entire compliment for a Burke. Not to mention you would probably need to update the secondary battery to the 5"/54 or 5"/62 guns, upgrade the TCM box launchers to a VLS system, and redesign the entire engineering structure of the ship to support shielding/distance for your reacturz bro. It'd be hard! It'd cost money! It'd take people! All things easy to deal with, all arguments people make because they don't see the big picture. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 10:41:51 PM EDT
[#12]
i agree
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 10:44:51 PM EDT
[#13]
Poll up.
 We'll see who the out of the box thinkers are who understand that many hands make light work, and the future isn't going to be like the past because the nature of warfare is always changing vs those closed minded types that prefer the Navy be shrank down to a few people per ship that are designed to fight wars like the 1980's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 10:45:23 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'll just chalk you up on the "American't" side. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: snip So they are limited to the range of their aircraft, and their aircraft's ability to operate. Which is still substantially farther than the range of BB guns, no matter how you slice it. The argument could certainly be made that carriers ARE obsolete, but to do so would be hilarious and untrue. That's why I posed it as a conditional statement, in hat any argument that holds true against a Battleship, holds true against a Carrier. Except for the differences in effective engagement range, organic ISR capabilities, and ASW range, then yes, the same arguments hold--as they do for any capital ship. On their own, however, they're rather vulnerable--which is why there are strike groups formed around them, just like with damn near any other capital ship. Forming a strike group to defend a slow, heavy, lumbering ship whose primary purpose is to bring short-range kinetic pain to an enemy is stupid, and if you say "what about cruise missiles"--well, DDs already do that. Both Carriers and Battleships are fast and have long legs. Much more so than smaller support vessels. A modernized/ futurized BB would be faster than a lot of smaller vessels by a good margin. Individually, yes. Doesn't matter if both types of capital vessels need the protection of those smaller vessels to survive, though--especially when the smaller vessels that would escort a BB carry the same utility as a BB via TLAMs, etc. The LCS is a POS, but it can take out a BB with ASM. So what? If it can take out a BB it can take out a carrier, or a ambhip, or a hospital ship... that's a red herring line of logic. Perhaps, but meant more to illustrate the vulnerability of a BB (or any capital ship) to modern ASM/A2AD. BBs are a floating target like CVNs, but unlike CVNs cannot bring airborne assets to the playing field--either to defend itself, or for offensive purposes. Tons of our ships can't do that. Once again, that's a red herring. But it matters if you need to form a group of ships around that capital ship to protect it. CVNs can help protect their escort vessels. BBs can't....unless you plan on fighting Jutland again. BBs take more manpower and maintenance than damn near anything afloat, Not really, by the 80's the crew size was down to 1800 vs the 6000 of a carrier. As far as maintenance, it can't bee too bad since they were modernized just like lots of older ships and were maintained at a high level while inactive on the register. Fair enough. and the rational cost/benefit analysis just makes them keep losing. Until you compare them to the Zumwalt, where we could have had four ships operating for years for less money than zero ships operating for years. I didn't say the Zumwalt was a good idea as built, either. Seems to be more of a technological testbed built solely to justify the sunk cost of R&D. I am curious if the USN will be so afraid to use it near combat zones (due to price), that it becomes another de-facto capital ship. The majority of our fleet can do a number of things that BBs cannot, and BBs can do things [that can be] done by any number of vessels less expensive in terms of manpower and material. This is all presuming the BB would even be able to arrive before the USAF bombed the ever living fuck out of everything. ... many other vessels would certainly play a role in open oceanic conflict that would overlap with BBs....except they're already in service.... You're right, BB's are no different.....except ...Their mere size and prestige instantly relegates them to capital ship status, and thereby a massive floating target [that] brings none of the benefits of a CVN. Surface bombardment can be performed by other vessels if we were dumb enough to bring them that close to shore (within active A2AD range). And if you say "what about if A2AD is destroyed"--well, the area's been bombed, so what's the point of a BB? Bunch of conjecture... Bunch of operational theory exploring the limits of the BB on the modern battlefield. Sorry, but BBs still lose. Barring technological advancements--such as some of the advanced gun systems and IPS/railgun/laser systems--that require giant hulls and rotating turrets, BBs aren't coming back. And even if those systems are to be fielded, the LockMarts and Newport News' of the world will make sure that it's not in legacy frames, because there's pork-barrel excess to be had. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 10:51:53 PM EDT
[#15]
The poll is giving me a freedom boner at the rate of one inch per vote! Keep it up!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 10:52:59 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Poll up. We'll see who the out of the box thinkers are who understand that many hands make light work, and the future isn't going to be like the past because the nature of warfare is always changing vs those closed minded types that prefer the Navy be shrank down to a few people per ship that are designed to fight wars like the 1980's. But large capital ships whose sole benefit over other vessels is the ability to deliver large, gun-launched kinetic weapons to shore doesn't make a lot of sense in an era where the USAF will get there first, the USN's CAGs will bomb it again, and TLAMs can hit it again. The only area a BB would be useful for is its shore bombardment, it would get shredded by A2AD before it could get within range...unless that A2AD was taken down by aircraft already, in which case aircraft or loitering UAVs could cover a beach assault with far less cost and risk to material. ETA: What could a BB do today that isn't handled well by other ships in the fleet, that would justify its return? Lots of ships have guns. Lots of ships have TLAMS. Some ships even launch planes now! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 10:53:19 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
*sigh* Time and money, so what? It'd be hard! It'd cost money! It'd take people! All things easy to deal with, all arguments people make because they don't see the big picture. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not this shit again. The crews for the MK7 turrets alone would be more than the entire compliment for a Burke. Not to mention you would probably need to update the secondary battery to the 5"/54 or 5"/62 guns, upgrade the TCM box launchers to a VLS system, and redesign the entire engineering structure of the ship to support shielding/distance for your reacturz bro. It'd be hard! It'd cost money! It'd take people! All things easy to deal with, all arguments people make because they don't see the big picture. What do we gain from this colossal expenditure? What experience do you have on surface combatants? Major caliber gun systems? Missile systems? NNPS? Electrical plants? Ship design? What is the big picture exactly? Or do you just want new youtube vids of big guns? It would probably take as long to build and cost as much as a new CVN. ETA: Quoted:
Poll up.
We'll see who the out of the box thinkers are who understand that many hands make light work, and the future isn't going to be like the past because the nature of warfare is always changing vs those closed minded types that prefer the Navy be shrank down to a few people per ship that are designed to fight wars like the 1980's. Can it be done given unlimited time and resources? Sure, Im not arguing that point. We harnessed the atom and put a fuckin man on the moon. My position is that given current force structure, infrastructure/logistics, and fiscal constraints it is neither prudent or realistic. Or even worthwhile given current threat paradigms. Which branch of service are you in? You sure dont seem aware of the realities facing the surface fleet right now. And believe me the last I want or need right now is a smaller Navy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 10:55:03 PM EDT
[#18]
We don't have the technological or engineering experience any longer to build the Battleship.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 10:58:21 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Make you a deal, I'll do that, if you calculate the square miles of coast line that a BB can shell. Bear in mind there was more than just 16" shells designed for the guns, and there were extended range shells as well. We'll discount the scramjet rounds and only stick to what can be shoved in and fired as is when the boats were active. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Think about it this way... with all the money spent on the GWOT, new fighters, submarines*, and the DDX... we could have brought back a battleship or two JUST to shell parts of Iraq in 2003 and no one would have even noticed it in the budget.
*look how much we've spent to build subs that get scrapped before even being finished. Please show me on a map what parts of Iraq you could shell w/ a reactivated 16" gun from a battleship & currently developed 16" projectiles. Feel free to use any navigational charts you wish. Make you a deal, I'll do that, if you calculate the square miles of coast line that a BB can shell. Bear in mind there was more than just 16" shells designed for the guns, and there were extended range shells as well. We'll discount the scramjet rounds and only stick to what can be shoved in and fired as is when the boats were active. Left the Department of the Navy 8 years ago, I'll let you do the math to justify a pre-2nd WW relic that won't come back, no matter how cool it is. Given Afghanistan is entirely landlocked, as is the Islamic State, and Iraq has the sea frontage of a postage stamp, I'll stick with my current service. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 10:59:26 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
if we are going there.... http://2.f.ix.de/imgs/18/9/0/5/9/4/0/iron_sky2.jpg-2d81905fe4bea82c.jpeg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
nah.... lets make some of these pipe hitters instead http://i.imgur.com/2nOiiZY.jpg http://i.imgur.com/OAVqVZr.jpg http://i.imgur.com/UGswgty.jpg Winner. if we are going there.... http://2.f.ix.de/imgs/18/9/0/5/9/4/0/iron_sky2.jpg-2d81905fe4bea82c.jpeg What am I looking at here? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 10:59:37 PM EDT
[#21]
 What is it? It's beautiful and looks like it will fuck shit up
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 11:00:55 PM EDT
[#22]
If we're bringing something back, let's bring back the Des Moines class Heavy Cruisers.
Fully Automatic 8" guns. Fuck yeah. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 11:01:47 PM EDT
[#23]
50 yrs ago yes, today NO!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 11:04:21 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If we're bringing something back, let's bring back the Des Moines class Heavy Cruisers. Fully Automatic 8" guns. Fuck yeah. Now that 8"/55 was a very capable gun system. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 11:04:39 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: For the record, I think this move is dumb--overworking people in charge of expensive toys is a bad idea. Overworking on ships typically comes from a lack of manpower. But large capital ships whose sole benefit over other vessels is the ability to deliver large, gun-launched kinetic weapons to shore doesn't make a lot of sense in an era where the USAF will get there first, USAF doesn't always get places first, and has to rely on airspace permission a lot of the time. the USN's CAGs will bomb it again, and TLAMs can hit it again. The only area a BB would be useful for is its shore bombardment, Well, that inland bombardment, anti-air, anti ballistic missile, anti satellite potentially... Anti piracy too for the hell of it... list goes on. it would get shredded by A2AD before it could get within range...unless that A2AD was taken down by aircraft already Or the range was extended farther than you think it is. , in which case aircraft or loitering UAVs could cover a beach assault with far less cost and risk to material. Amazing if you could have a C&C ship close by piloting/ controlling those UAV's in real time instead of what they do a lot of the times instead. ETA: What could a BB do today that isn't handled well by other ships in the fleet, that would justify its return? Lots of ships have guns. Lots of ships have TLAMS. Some ships even launch planes now! Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Poll up. We'll see who the out of the box thinkers are who understand that many hands make light work, and the future isn't going to be like the past because the nature of warfare is always changing vs those closed minded types that prefer the Navy be shrank down to a few people per ship that are designed to fight wars like the 1980's. Overworking on ships typically comes from a lack of manpower. But large capital ships whose sole benefit over other vessels is the ability to deliver large, gun-launched kinetic weapons to shore doesn't make a lot of sense in an era where the USAF will get there first, USAF doesn't always get places first, and has to rely on airspace permission a lot of the time. the USN's CAGs will bomb it again, and TLAMs can hit it again. The only area a BB would be useful for is its shore bombardment, Well, that inland bombardment, anti-air, anti ballistic missile, anti satellite potentially... Anti piracy too for the hell of it... list goes on. it would get shredded by A2AD before it could get within range...unless that A2AD was taken down by aircraft already Or the range was extended farther than you think it is. , in which case aircraft or loitering UAVs could cover a beach assault with far less cost and risk to material. Amazing if you could have a C&C ship close by piloting/ controlling those UAV's in real time instead of what they do a lot of the times instead. ETA: What could a BB do today that isn't handled well by other ships in the fleet, that would justify its return? Lots of ships have guns. Lots of ships have TLAMS. Some ships even launch planes now! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 11:15:16 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Take an aircraft carrier and weld a battleship to each side of it.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 11:18:16 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryWhat is it? It's beautiful and looks like it will fuck shit up It was theorized that they could increase a 16" guns effective range well past 100 miles, and from some of the stuff I read, up to 400. A lot of it all goes back to Gerald Bull and HARP. (You know, where he used modified 16" guns to shoot satellites into space ) |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 11:38:24 PM EDT
[#28]
Battleships are very cool but nowadays I'd rather have an aircraft carrier anytime.
Let's do this. One on one. Launch a battleship from Hawaii and an aircraft carrier from Washington to face off. No escort or task group. Both fully loaded. Who wins? Or, you have to dislodge, knock-down, neutralize a well entrenched enemy (let's make easy) near a beach. Which one you pick? Or, you need to rescue the population of a region ravaged by a natural disaster. Which one? What a battleship would do better? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 11:53:58 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Existing hulls would be cheap to modify vs all the experimental stuff that never gets fielded. Also, be more survivble. That's always handy sometimes. Heck, a carrier can be put out of service through nothing more than a flight deck accident. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Poll up. We'll see who the out of the box thinkers are who understand that many hands make light work, and the future isn't going to be like the past because the nature of warfare is always changing vs those closed minded types that prefer the Navy be shrank down to a few people per ship that are designed to fight wars like the 1980's. Overworking on ships typically comes from a lack of manpower. Right. Which is why I said it's dumb. But large capital ships whose sole benefit over other vessels is the ability to deliver large, gun-launched kinetic weapons to shore doesn't make a lot of sense in an era where the USAF will get there first, USAF doesn't always get places first, and has to rely on airspace permission a lot of the time. For the types of wars the BBs would be useful to fight, Air-to-air refueling is still quicker than a BB strike group. And a CAG would still be able to get to the target faster than a BB could get in range. the USN's CAGs will bomb it again, and TLAMs can hit it again. The only area a BB would be useful for is its shore bombardment, Well, that inland bombardment, anti-air, anti ballistic missile, anti satellite potentially... Anti piracy too for the hell of it... list goes on. Inland bombardment=aircraft or artillery AA=Almost anything else afloat can do this. ABM=BB would be less than ideal. Other vessels armed with AEGIS would do better, or would the USS Ponce. Or the USAF's shitty ABM systems. Anti-Sat= an F-15 with the ASM-135, or a Tico-class with a SM-3 will do Anti-Piracy=smaller autocannons would work better. it would get shredded by A2AD before it could get within range...unless that A2AD was taken down by aircraft already Or the range was extended farther than you think it is. By untested, unproven technology which is the sole justification for bringing an entire class of vessel back? How's the NLOS missile working out for the Army or LCS? Oh wait, expensive boondoggles that got cancelled and left the LCS without long-range offensive weaponry  . The Excalibur system could work....but still doesn't give epic range., in which case aircraft or loitering UAVs could cover a beach assault with far less cost and risk to material. Amazing if you could have a C&C ship close by piloting/ controlling those UAV's in real time instead of what they do a lot of the times instead. Unless you mean the firescout, how would the UAV be launched and recaptured? Or do you mean an in-flight handoff? In which case....why couldn't this be done by any ship extant already, rather than used as justification for the BB? ETA: What could a BB do today that isn't handled well by other ships in the fleet, that would justify its return? Lots of ships have guns. Lots of ships have TLAMS. Some ships even launch planes now! The Bismark proved that BBs are dumb. The Admiral Belgrano proved that gun-based capital ships are dumb. The Peruvian BAP <cite class="_Rm">Almirante Grau (CLM-81)</cite> is an anachronistic old POS because nobody else wants big gun ships, either, because they're dumb. Carriers spread soft power today the way the White Fleet did a long time ago. Using a gunboat to try to do the same? Also dumb. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 11:55:34 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Battleships are very cool but nowadays I'd rather have an aircraft carrier anytime.
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/images/cv1.jpg Let's do this. One on one. Launch a battleship from Hawaii and an aircraft carrier from Washington to face off. No escort or task group. Both fully loaded. Who wins? Or, you have to dislodge, knock-down, neutralize a well entrenched enemy (let's make easy) near a beach. Which one you pick? Or, you need to rescue the population of a region ravaged by a natural disaster. Which one? What a battleship would do better? The battleship, if concealed in a hurricane, wins everytime.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 12:02:00 AM EDT
[#31]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 12:09:54 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The battleship, if concealed in a hurricane, wins everytime. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Battleships are very cool but nowadays I'd rather have an aircraft carrier anytime.
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/images/cv1.jpg Let's do this. One on one. Launch a battleship from Hawaii and an aircraft carrier from Washington to face off. No escort or task group. Both fully loaded. Who wins? Or, you have to dislodge, knock-down, neutralize a well entrenched enemy (let's make easy) near a beach. Which one you pick? Or, you need to rescue the population of a region ravaged by a natural disaster. Which one? What a battleship would do better? The battleship, if concealed in a hurricane, wins everytime. So, assuming the scout airplanes do not find the battleship, it would also have a heck of a time battling the hurricane instead of the carrier. And, let's not forget it's out of luck when it's not hurricane season.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 12:11:02 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The battleship, if concealed in a hurricane, wins everytime. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Battleships are very cool but nowadays I'd rather have an aircraft carrier anytime.
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/images/cv1.jpg Let's do this. One on one. Launch a battleship from Hawaii and an aircraft carrier from Washington to face off. No escort or task group. Both fully loaded. Who wins? Or, you have to dislodge, knock-down, neutralize a well entrenched enemy (let's make easy) near a beach. Which one you pick? Or, you need to rescue the population of a region ravaged by a natural disaster. Which one? What a battleship would do better? The battleship, if concealed in a hurricane, wins everytime. Yes, but aircraft carriers in hurricanes are time machines. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 12:12:04 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Battleships are very cool but nowadays I'd rather have an aircraft carrier anytime. http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/images/cv1.jpg Let's do this. One on one. Launch a battleship from Hawaii and an aircraft carrier from Washington to face off. No escort or task group. Both fully loaded. Who wins? Or, you have to dislodge, knock-down, neutralize a well entrenched enemy (let's make easy) near a beach. Which one you pick? Or, you need to rescue the population of a region ravaged by a natural disaster. Which one? What a battleship would do better? Well for question one the answer is the submarine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 12:32:30 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You know who used to say that? Shoeh8ter and Dport. ETA- Here's the faliure with that logic. If those things make a battleship obsolete, they make ALL surface warfare ships obsolete. BB's are better protected than MANY current ships that operate near shore such as ARG/ MEU's. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They're a little obsolete with the advent of long range anti-ship missiles, armed drones, carriers, and attack subs. Shoeh8ter and Dport. ETA- Here's the faliure with that logic. If those things make a battleship obsolete, they make ALL surface warfare ships obsolete. BB's are better protected than MANY current ships that operate near shore such as ARG/ MEU's. A broken clock is right twice a day.... Explain to me a modern role for the classic battleship other than carrier escort. Now maybe we can rethink it and instead of 16" guns it could have batteries of cruise missiles, a fleet of drones, Phalanx cannons, anti-ship torpedoes and missles etc etc. Without those kinds of things they would be navel artillery in an era when amphibious landings haven't been done in decades. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 12:44:11 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well for question one the answer is the submarine. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Battleships are very cool but nowadays I'd rather have an aircraft carrier anytime. http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/images/cv1.jpg Let's do this. One on one. Launch a battleship from Hawaii and an aircraft carrier from Washington to face off. No escort or task group. Both fully loaded. Who wins? Or, you have to dislodge, knock-down, neutralize a well entrenched enemy (let's make easy) near a beach. Which one you pick? Or, you need to rescue the population of a region ravaged by a natural disaster. Which one? What a battleship would do better? Well for question one the answer is the submarine. Yep, you'll never hear or see that fucker coming in until you are warned you have a torpedo coming straight up your ass.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 12:47:47 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://www.g2mil.com/scramjet.jpg What is it? It's beautiful and looks like it will fuck shit up I need to cut a slightly deeper feed ramp or I foresee many FTF's in my future. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 12:48:06 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: if we are going there.... http://2.f.ix.de/imgs/18/9/0/5/9/4/0/iron_sky2.jpg-2d81905fe4bea82c.jpeg That W on the ship.... Seems rather familiar....  Ring any bells yet?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 1:01:34 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I like this 
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/dear-us-navy-the-futuristic-x3k-is-the-littoral-combat-1644205558 http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--1orbfwH---/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/a0dfhxzx9vj8ncbomweq.jpg http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--W0-tpdQg--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/ozb4imcdpoagyjdn9pfn.jpg That thing was so advanced that it burned up sitting in port.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 1:38:38 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Montana-class design was a product of the late 1930s, when no-one thought carrier-based air could actually sink a capital ship. Pearl Harbor kind of changed that. The South Dakota and Iowa-class ships were "fast" battleship designs, and could keep up with the Essex carriers they ended up escorting. Montana and her sisters could not have. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Too slow. 28 knots is a joke. I've been on cargo ships that could run faster than that. I'd wager they decided that the extra armor and guns more than made up for the vulnerability of being "slow" though I wonder when in the process they decided that. Was it a 1944 "we have air superiority" decision or a 1942 "B-17s can defend themselves" sort of decision. The Montana-class design was a product of the late 1930s, when no-one thought carrier-based air could actually sink a capital ship. Pearl Harbor kind of changed that. The South Dakota and Iowa-class ships were "fast" battleship designs, and could keep up with the Essex carriers they ended up escorting. Montana and her sisters could not have. I'm pretty sure people knew a battleship could be sunk by aircraft by the time of Pearl Harbor. Not that some old, obsolete ships by battleship standards at anchor caught unawares with the rest of the fleet really proved much of anything. Any vessel in that situation was and is inherently vulnerable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 2:22:56 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm pretty sure people knew a battleship could be sunk by aircraft by the time of Pearl Harbor. Not that some old, obsolete ships by battleship standards at anchor caught unawares with the rest of the fleet really proved much of anything. Any vessel in that situation was and is inherently vulnerable. Quote HistoryQuoted: snip I'm pretty sure people knew a battleship could be sunk by aircraft by the time of Pearl Harbor. Not that some old, obsolete ships by battleship standards at anchor caught unawares with the rest of the fleet really proved much of anything. Any vessel in that situation was and is inherently vulnerable. Look how fucked up the airfields got and they can't even sink... FWIW you're right about then knowing about planes , the WW2 BB's had "bomb decks" built into them for that. Plus, they expected 2000 lbs shells to hit them from high angles, so you know... that help too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 2:30:05 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What is it? Quote HistoryIt's beautiful and looks like it will fuck shit up It was theorized that they could increase a 16" guns effective range well past 100 miles, and from some of the stuff I read, up to 400. A lot of it all goes back to Gerald Bull and HARP. (You know, where he used modified 16" guns to shoot satellites into space )So it's a 16in gyrojet? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 2:30:51 AM EDT
[#43]
So.... No one brought up the "torpedo under the keel breaking it's back and sinking it" thing yet...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 2:31:45 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Left the Department of the Navy 8 years ago, I'll let you do the math to justify a pre-2nd WW relic that won't come back, no matter how cool it is. Given Afghanistan is entirely landlocked, as is the Islamic State, and Iraq has the sea frontage of a postage stamp, I'll stick with my current service. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 5:57:45 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:before even being
Make you a deal, I'll do that, if you calculate the square miles of coast line that a BB can shell. Bear in mind there was more than just 16" shells designed for the guns, and there were extended range shells as well. We'll discount the scramjet rounds and only stick to what can be shoved in and fired as is when the boats were active.
All those square miles of coast that the Marines aren't going to assault because they bought MV-22s to go over/around defended areas and do STOM? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 6:26:11 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: All those square miles of coast that the Marines aren't going to assault because they bought MV-22s to go over/around defended areas and do STOM? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted:before even being Make you a deal, I'll do that, if you calculate the square miles of coast line that a BB can shell. Bear in mind there was more than just 16" shells designed for the guns, and there were extended range shells as well. We'll discount the scramjet rounds and only stick to what can be shoved in and fired as is when the boats were active. All those square miles of coast that the Marines aren't going to assault because they bought MV-22s to go over/around defended areas and do STOM? Just like the -22 can go further inland than what it replaced. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 6:27:15 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's beautiful and looks like it will fuck shit up Quote HistoryQuoted: It'll take me a bit to dig up all the old info I used to have, but there was a program(s) looking at how to extend the range of projectiles. Scramjet and ram accelerator shells were looked at. It's beautiful and looks like it will fuck shit up It was theorized that they could increase a 16" guns effective range well past 100 miles, and from some of the stuff I read, up to 400. A lot of it all goes back to Gerald Bull and HARP. (You know, where he used modified 16" guns to shoot satellites into space )So it's a 16in gyrojet? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 6:29:21 AM EDT
[#48]
Hell I'd settle for this---
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 6:32:38 AM EDT
[#49]
*sigh* can't wait for "World of Warships" to open up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 6:34:04 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd wager they decided that the extra armor and guns more than made up for the vulnerability of being "slow" though I wonder when in the process they decided that. Was it a 1944 "we have air superiority" decision or a 1942 "B-17s can defend themselves" sort of decision. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Too slow. 28 knots is a joke. I've been on cargo ships that could run faster than that. I'd wager they decided that the extra armor and guns more than made up for the vulnerability of being "slow" though I wonder when in the process they decided that. Was it a 1944 "we have air superiority" decision or a 1942 "B-17s can defend themselves" sort of decision. Ask the crew of the Yamato. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
