User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 11:45:05 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://www.g2mil.com/scramjet.jpg What is it? It's beautiful and looks like it will fuck shit up I'm guessing... Rail gun projectile. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 11:46:01 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As to the picture I painted of the dictator having cruise missiles Or terrorists |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 11:53:06 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryDamn, C-802s... Nasty little fuckers that are hard to detect and intercept.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 12:12:30 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Damn, C-802s... Nasty little fuckers that are hard to detect and intercept. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Damn, C-802s... Nasty little fuckers that are hard to detect and intercept. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 1:05:15 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Let us skip all of the horse shit and start using tactical nukes. The second battle of Fallujah could have been over in 15 seconds. It would have send a message that would have been understood by all the cave men around the world. Good answer. Good answer. I like the way you think. I'm gonna be watching you.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 1:09:23 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Here's a pic that sort of shows why BB's radically different structure of the hull makes them more survivable/ recoverable. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/Seamanship/img/Seamanship-4-3.jpg Here's the Zumwalt for comparison. http://www.theforecaster.net/files/imagecache/large/2011/11/22/m-bath-biw-zumwalt-cross-section.jpg There are threat weapons deployed now that would sink a BB fairly quickly. I understand this may be difficult for most of you guys to grasp, but the BBs would be very vulnerable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 1:13:46 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are threat weapons deployed now that would sink a BB fairly quickly. I understand this may be difficult for most of you guys to grasp, but the BBs would be very vulnerable. Without a Carrier Battle Group worth of ASW assets, Battleships are nothing more than attack sub bait. And if you have to deploy that many ships to be safe anyway, just use the damn carrier.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 1:50:46 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are threat weapons deployed now that would sink a BB fairly quickly. I understand this may be difficult for most of you guys to grasp, but the BBs would be very vulnerable. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Here's a pic that sort of shows why BB's radically different structure of the hull makes them more survivable/ recoverable. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/Seamanship/img/Seamanship-4-3.jpg Here's the Zumwalt for comparison. http://www.theforecaster.net/files/imagecache/large/2011/11/22/m-bath-biw-zumwalt-cross-section.jpg There are threat weapons deployed now that would sink a BB fairly quickly. I understand this may be difficult for most of you guys to grasp, but the BBs would be very vulnerable. Doesn't even require sinking. Take out the Detect/Track systems and the ship is a mission kill. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 3:27:00 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are threat weapons deployed now that would sink a BB fairly quickly. I understand this may be difficult for most of you guys to grasp, but the BBs would be very vulnerable. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Here's a pic that sort of shows why BB's radically different structure of the hull makes them more survivable/ recoverable. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/Seamanship/img/Seamanship-4-3.jpg Here's the Zumwalt for comparison. http://www.theforecaster.net/files/imagecache/large/2011/11/22/m-bath-biw-zumwalt-cross-section.jpg There are threat weapons deployed now that would sink a BB fairly quickly. I understand this may be difficult for most of you guys to grasp, but the BBs would be very vulnerable. You're comparing 1930s BB armor to modern weapons. Not exactly fair. There are ATGMs that can kill a Sherman. Obviously the tank is now useless. Chobham armor, and more importantly, heavy use of active defense assets (missiles, MW class lasers, guns, all of which a correctly designed BBN should have plenty of room and power for) should make for an extremely hard to kill ship. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 3:32:01 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Chobham armor, and more importantly, heavy use of active defense assets (missiles, MW class lasers, guns, all of which a correctly designed BBN should have plenty of room and power for) should make for an extremely hard to kill ship. I don't think you could make anything that floats and can move around that a couple of modern torpedoes couldn't sink. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 4:02:03 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're comparing 1930s BB armor to modern weapons. Not exactly fair. There are ATGMs that can kill a Sherman. Obviously the tank is now useless. Chobham armor, and more importantly, heavy use of active defense assets (missiles, MW class lasers, guns, all of which a correctly designed BBN should have plenty of room and power for) should make for an extremely hard to kill ship. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Here's a pic that sort of shows why BB's radically different structure of the hull makes them more survivable/ recoverable. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/Seamanship/img/Seamanship-4-3.jpg Here's the Zumwalt for comparison. http://www.theforecaster.net/files/imagecache/large/2011/11/22/m-bath-biw-zumwalt-cross-section.jpg There are threat weapons deployed now that would sink a BB fairly quickly. I understand this may be difficult for most of you guys to grasp, but the BBs would be very vulnerable. You're comparing 1930s BB armor to modern weapons. Not exactly fair. There are ATGMs that can kill a Sherman. Obviously the tank is now useless. Chobham armor, and more importantly, heavy use of active defense assets (missiles, MW class lasers, guns, all of which a correctly designed BBN should have plenty of room and power for) should make for an extremely hard to kill ship. Are you going to armor the radar, illuminators, and comm/datalink antennas? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 4:19:14 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't think you could make anything that floats and can move around that a couple of modern torpedoes couldn't sink. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Chobham armor, and more importantly, heavy use of active defense assets (missiles, MW class lasers, guns, all of which a correctly designed BBN should have plenty of room and power for) should make for an extremely hard to kill ship. I don't think you could make anything that floats and can move around that a couple of modern torpedoes couldn't sink. Subs and torpedoes are a different matter. However, there are solutions to that problem, unrelated to armor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 4:21:26 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you going to armor the radar, illuminators, and comm/datalink antennas? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Here's a pic that sort of shows why BB's radically different structure of the hull makes them more survivable/ recoverable. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/Seamanship/img/Seamanship-4-3.jpg Here's the Zumwalt for comparison. http://www.theforecaster.net/files/imagecache/large/2011/11/22/m-bath-biw-zumwalt-cross-section.jpg There are threat weapons deployed now that would sink a BB fairly quickly. I understand this may be difficult for most of you guys to grasp, but the BBs would be very vulnerable. You're comparing 1930s BB armor to modern weapons. Not exactly fair. There are ATGMs that can kill a Sherman. Obviously the tank is now useless. Chobham armor, and more importantly, heavy use of active defense assets (missiles, MW class lasers, guns, all of which a correctly designed BBN should have plenty of room and power for) should make for an extremely hard to kill ship. Are you going to armor the radar, illuminators, and comm/datalink antennas? Redundancy and distribution are probably the best approach with many systems which are difficult to harden. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 4:24:31 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Redundancy and distribution are probably the best approach with many systems which are difficult to harden. Okay, so now you're left with the question: If you're going to build multiple sets of all these vital expensive systems, why would you them put them all into one big hull? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 4:36:58 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Okay, so now you're left with the question: If you're going to build multiple sets of all these vital expensive systems, why would you them put them all into one big hull? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Redundancy and distribution are probably the best approach with many systems which are difficult to harden. Okay, so now you're left with the question: If you're going to build multiple sets of all these vital expensive systems, why would you them put them all into one big hull? Because you're probably going to need a big hull if you want >MW lasers and the power systems needed to feed them. It's just not going to really fit on a smaller ship... You already need it to be nuke. Then add the laser itself, its thermal management systems... A powerful and well implemented laser is the ultimate missile/aircraft defense asset. Combined with effective detection/targeting and missiles are suddenly impotent. And no, many small lasers do not provide the same capability as one big laser. Now, how do you counter a ship with effective laser defenses? High thermal capacity projectiles that are robust against lasers, unlike missiles... Well that, or just say fuck it and use a submarine... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 4:41:53 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There are threat weapons deployed now that would sink a BB fairly quickly. I understand this may be difficult for most of you guys to grasp, but the BBs would be very vulnerable. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Here's a pic that sort of shows why BB's radically different structure of the hull makes them more survivable/ recoverable. snip There are threat weapons deployed now that would sink a BB fairly quickly. I understand this may be difficult for most of you guys to grasp, but the BBs would be very vulnerable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 5:11:26 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm guessing... Rail gun projectile. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
http://www.g2mil.com/scramjet.jpg What is it? It's beautiful and looks like it will fuck shit up I'm guessing... Rail gun projectile. Actually, it's a scramjet projectile... Pretty cool concept. Fun fact: Railguns are an inherently flawed concept as long service life guns. Railguns by nature destroy themselves in just a few shots. They might be useful as disposable scramjet missile launch tubes... Useless as an actual "gun". |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 5:24:55 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Actually, it's a scramjet projectile... Pretty cool concept. Fun fact: Railguns are an inherently flawed concept as long service life guns. Railguns by nature destroy themselves in just a few shots. They might be useful as disposable scramjet missile launch tubes... Useless as an actual "gun". Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: http://www.g2mil.com/scramjet.jpg What is it? It's beautiful and looks like it will fuck shit up I'm guessing... Rail gun projectile. Actually, it's a scramjet projectile... Pretty cool concept. Fun fact: Railguns are an inherently flawed concept as long service life guns. Railguns by nature destroy themselves in just a few shots. They might be useful as disposable scramjet missile launch tubes... Useless as an actual "gun". ETA- the Scramjet rounds are still being actively developed beyond just concept. The South Africans are still hot to use them. Here's a really detailed in depth white paper out of England |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 5:38:53 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're comparing 1930s BB armor to modern weapons. Not exactly fair. There are ATGMs that can kill a Sherman. Obviously the tank is now useless. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Here's a pic that sort of shows why BB's radically different structure of the hull makes them more survivable/ recoverable. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/Seamanship/img/Seamanship-4-3.jpg Here's the Zumwalt for comparison. http://www.theforecaster.net/files/imagecache/large/2011/11/22/m-bath-biw-zumwalt-cross-section.jpg There are threat weapons deployed now that would sink a BB fairly quickly. I understand this may be difficult for most of you guys to grasp, but the BBs would be very vulnerable. You're comparing 1930s BB armor to modern weapons. Not exactly fair. There are ATGMs that can kill a Sherman. Obviously the tank is now useless. Interesting observation. How well do tanks do without air cover? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 5:54:46 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Interesting observation. How well do tanks do without air cover? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Here's a pic that sort of shows why BB's radically different structure of the hull makes them more survivable/ recoverable. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/Seamanship/img/Seamanship-4-3.jpg Here's the Zumwalt for comparison. http://www.theforecaster.net/files/imagecache/large/2011/11/22/m-bath-biw-zumwalt-cross-section.jpg There are threat weapons deployed now that would sink a BB fairly quickly. I understand this may be difficult for most of you guys to grasp, but the BBs would be very vulnerable. You're comparing 1930s BB armor to modern weapons. Not exactly fair. There are ATGMs that can kill a Sherman. Obviously the tank is now useless. Interesting observation. How well do tanks do without air cover? Depends on the enemy. 
Why must a BBN operate without air cover? A BBN as I envision, being an excellent air/missile defense platform (MW lasers w00t), would probably to a great asset to protect carriers, among other missions. Also, time will tell if I am right about the impact lasers will have... But if I am... Aircraft could be in for some... Problems. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 6:02:58 PM EDT
[#21]
Now, imagine being able to operate Aerostat's off a Modernized battleship
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 6:06:46 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Now, imagine being able to operate Aerostat's off a Modernized battleship It'll need to be able to keep up... A BBN may be capable of >30kts. Or are you towing it via tether? Let's mission creep this bitch until it's also a CAS platform somehow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 6:30:52 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why must a BBN operate without air cover? A BBN as I envision, being an excellent air/missile defense platform (MW lasers w00t), would probably to a great asset to protect carriers, among other missions. Also, time will tell if I am right about the impact lasers will have... But if I am... Aircraft could be in for some... Problems. So, now the BBN is there to protect a CVN? I thought this was an in lieu of. What does it do better than a CVN? With chobham armor, a nuclear power plant, and presumably its own integrated air defense system including lasers and SAMs, it certainly isn't going to be less expensive. As far as lasers - some day they probably will have an impact...on things above the horizon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 6:36:52 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is true, and why I myself like coil guns, but they have their own shortcomings as well. ETA- the Scramjet rounds are still being actively developed beyond just concept. The South Africans are still hot to use them. Here's a really detailed in depth white paper out of England Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://www.g2mil.com/scramjet.jpg What is it? It's beautiful and looks like it will fuck shit up I'm guessing... Rail gun projectile. Actually, it's a scramjet projectile... Pretty cool concept. Fun fact: Railguns are an inherently flawed concept as long service life guns. Railguns by nature destroy themselves in just a few shots. They might be useful as disposable scramjet missile launch tubes... Useless as an actual "gun". ETA- the Scramjet rounds are still being actively developed beyond just concept. The South Africans are still hot to use them. Here's a really detailed in depth white paper out of England So your scramjet round would have almost 1/4 of the range of LRLAP? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 7:12:53 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So your scramjet round would have almost 1/4 of the range of LRLAP? Quote HistoryQuoted: So your scramjet round would have almost 1/4 of the range of LRLAP?  LOL no. Nice try trying to infer that from the article though. The 16" P&W scramject rounds as of development in 2003 were intended to have a 400 Nm range. The LRLAP is SUPPOSED to get 100 Nm, and everything I fin puts it at about the same range as the SA G6's V-lap which makes sense, because physics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 7:13:19 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, now the BBN is there to protect a CVN? I thought this was an in lieu of. What does it do better than a CVN? With chobham armor, a nuclear power plant, and presumably its own integrated air defense system including lasers and SAMs, it certainly isn't going to be less expensive. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why must a BBN operate without air cover? A BBN as I envision, being an excellent air/missile defense platform (MW lasers w00t), would probably to a great asset to protect carriers, among other missions. Also, time will tell if I am right about the impact lasers will have... But if I am... Aircraft could be in for some... Problems. So, now the BBN is there to protect a CVN? I thought this was an in lieu of. What does it do better than a CVN? With chobham armor, a nuclear power plant, and presumably its own integrated air defense system including lasers and SAMs, it certainly isn't going to be less expensive. I'm assuming we will still want carriers for various reasons (strike aircraft, submarine warfare assets, AWACS/surveillance platforms, etc). Sticking multi-MW defense lasers on a Carrier has a lot of problems... You basically cannot depend on them, even assuming you can fit the damn things. A BBN as outlined would thus be an excellent asset to protect an otherwise vulnerable Carrier. There are many other missions the BBN would be excellent for that a CVN would not be capable of. For one, engaging similarly laser protected surface ships that aircraft will have problems with. 500lb DU darts are difficult to take out with a laser. Thermal capacity. For another, protecting vessels near shore that may come under close range missile attack. That whole laser thing again... When reaction time is limited, the laser really shines (har harr). As far as lasers - some day they probably will have an impact...on things above the horizon. Except for torpedoes/mines, everything used against a ship has to be above the horizon at some point. The math regarding the survival of a missile against a >MW laser is rather... Unfavorable to the missile. Back that laser with a constant multi-MW power supply (nuke) and a seawater heat exchanger for cooling... What good are aircraft when no weapon they carry will actually reach the target? And at the current rate of improvement of solid-state lasers... The above possibility is not far out at all. It will be here before doctrine can adjust. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 7:23:23 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LOL no. Nice try trying to infer that from the article though.
The 16" P&W scramject rounds as of development in 2003 were intended to have a 400 Nm range. The LRLAP is SUPPOSED to get 100 Nm, and everything I fin puts it at about the same range as the SA G6's V-lap which makes sense, because physics. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So your scramjet round would have almost 1/4 of the range of LRLAP? LOL no. Nice try trying to infer that from the article though.
The 16" P&W scramject rounds as of development in 2003 were intended to have a 400 Nm range. The LRLAP is SUPPOSED to get 100 Nm, and everything I fin puts it at about the same range as the SA G6's V-lap which makes sense, because physics. Your article talks about a 155mm scramjet round with a range of "over 40km". LRLAP is somewhere between 75 and 100+ nm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 7:39:52 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Your article talks about a 155mm scramjet round with a range of "over 40km". LRLAP is somewhere between 75 and 100+ nm. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: So your scramjet round would have almost 1/4 of the range of LRLAP? LOL no. Nice try trying to infer that from the article though. The 16" P&W scramject rounds as of development in 2003 were intended to have a 400 Nm range. The LRLAP is SUPPOSED to get 100 Nm, and everything I fin puts it at about the same range as the SA G6's V-lap which makes sense, because physics. Your article talks about a 155mm scramjet round with a range of "over 40km". LRLAP is somewhere between 75 and 100+ nm. But you specifically "your scramjet round". "My" scramjet round was developed by P&W and is a separate beast from what was in the white paper linked. I know that doesn't help you at all, the LRLAP would get stomped range wise by scramjet rounds. Stupid physics and all that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 7:45:27 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It talks about more than just 155mm. It also talks about 8" rounds. But the purpose of the article was for people interested in finer details in the theory. But you specifically "your scramjet round". "My" scramjet round was developed by P&W and is a separate beast from what was in the white paper linked. I know that doesn't help you at all, the LRLAP would get stomped range wise by scramjet rounds. Stupid physics and all that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So your scramjet round would have almost 1/4 of the range of LRLAP? LOL no. Nice try trying to infer that from the article though.
The 16" P&W scramject rounds as of development in 2003 were intended to have a 400 Nm range. The LRLAP is SUPPOSED to get 100 Nm, and everything I fin puts it at about the same range as the SA G6's V-lap which makes sense, because physics. Your article talks about a 155mm scramjet round with a range of "over 40km". LRLAP is somewhere between 75 and 100+ nm. But you specifically "your scramjet round". "My" scramjet round was developed by P&W and is a separate beast from what was in the white paper linked. I know that doesn't help you at all, the LRLAP would get stomped range wise by scramjet rounds. Stupid physics and all that. Your linked article: 155mm scramjet round. Range >40km LRLAP range 75-105 miles. Your supporting data, not mine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 7:46:33 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It talks about more than just 155mm. It also talks about 8" rounds. But the purpose of the article was for people interested in finer details in the theory. But you specifically "your scramjet round". "My" scramjet round was developed by P&W and is a separate beast from what was in the white paper linked. I know that doesn't help you at all, the LRLAP would get stomped range wise by scramjet rounds. Stupid physics and all that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So your scramjet round would have almost 1/4 of the range of LRLAP? LOL no. Nice try trying to infer that from the article though.
The 16" P&W scramject rounds as of development in 2003 were intended to have a 400 Nm range. The LRLAP is SUPPOSED to get 100 Nm, and everything I fin puts it at about the same range as the SA G6's V-lap which makes sense, because physics. Your article talks about a 155mm scramjet round with a range of "over 40km". LRLAP is somewhere between 75 and 100+ nm. But you specifically "your scramjet round". "My" scramjet round was developed by P&W and is a separate beast from what was in the white paper linked. I know that doesn't help you at all, the LRLAP would get stomped range wise by scramjet rounds. Stupid physics and all that. Already developing a new 16" smoothbore projectile family: APFSDS-GB for protected/extremely hard targets, hypersonic scramjet for unprotected targets at great distance, 2,000lb guided HE for close range fire support... Just needs tungsten canister shot... No idea what for, but it's definitely needed.
Gun-delivered torpedoes maybe? That would require a whole new torpedo design though... But with rocket assist you could lob it pretty damn far very quickly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 7:53:08 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Your linked article: 155mm scramjet round. Range >40km LRLAP range 75-105 miles. Your supporting data, not mine. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: snip Your linked article: 155mm scramjet round. Range >40km LRLAP range 75-105 miles. Your supporting data, not mine. It's not my problem if you make a mountain out of a mole hill and distract yourself with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 8:52:24 PM EDT
[#32]
Stitch together a bunch of unproven, developmental technologies into a multi mission platform. Sounds like LCS x JSF.
At least it worked out well on RAH-66. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 8:57:06 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yup. When it comes to lasers, thermal capacity is the name of the game. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I love the old battleships but they are out dated with air power taking over. I would have loved to hear one of those big guns clear it's throat a time or two though. Also, there's the future to think of. What happens when high energy weapons become more prevalent? What good will air power be? What if air power also has high energy weapons? Unless it's a flying battlehip it's gonna get smoked. Yup. When it comes to lasers, thermal capacity is the name of the game. ... or reflective surfaces. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 9:15:46 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is not the material costs, it is the personnel costs that would make it impossible. Each BB had approx. 2 LHA/LHDs worth of crews on them and the Navy has been getting rid of ships to save crews Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No. It is not the material costs, it is the personnel costs that would make it impossible. Each BB had approx. 2 LHA/LHDs worth of crews on them and the Navy has been getting rid of ships to save crews If we are modernizing then automation could eliminate a bunch of personnel. However it would require replacing every component on the ship so might as well build a new ship designed to be for the automation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 9:19:38 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Damn, C-802s... Nasty little fuckers that are hard to detect and intercept.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbUU_9bOcnMSuh-weet.  If I was a dictator of some third world shithole nation, I'd be wanting those things.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 9:21:05 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As a taxpayer, I can think of about five hundred things I hate that my money funds. Battleships, much like the USS Constitution are one of the coolest things this country has ever produced. There are others too, like the SR-71 and the B-17. We ought to have an entire branch of the military devoted to maintaining a fleet of obsolete war machines just to display and parade around to show how fucking great we are. And every now and then, just show the flag every once in a while...how fucking cool would it be (in an area of complete air superiority) to conduct strafing runs in a squadron of P-47s or have a wing of B-17s do a low-flying bombing run on a bunch of assholes who need killing in style? The Brits could kill shit with Vulcan bombers and destroy dams in Lancasters. Go hunt Somali pirates in the USS Constitution...it will be like old times. 
I would champion a politician that supported this idea. Even as a libertarian. Because 'Murica, FUCK YEAH.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I like the way you think, but I would still be worried about losing some of the few remaining P47's etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 9:28:04 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Stitch together a bunch of unproven, developmental technologies into a multi mission platform. Sounds like LCS x JSF. At least it worked out well on RAH-66. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 10:28:09 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Or... instead, do what the rest of us are talking about and equip a proven design with emerging technology. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Stitch together a bunch of unproven, developmental technologies into a multi mission platform. Sounds like LCS x JSF. At least it worked out well on RAH-66. Wha is the proven part of your nuclear space battleship? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 11:28:13 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wha is the proven part of your nuclear space battleship? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Stitch together a bunch of unproven, developmental technologies into a multi mission platform. Sounds like LCS x JSF. At least it worked out well on RAH-66. Wha is the proven part of your nuclear space battleship?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 11:35:11 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote History
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 11:42:09 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They're only outdated when people don't have the foresight to understand they can be used for all sorts of things. Even if it's intermittently. Also, there's the future to think of. What happens when high energy weapons become more prevalent? What good will air power be? What if air power also has high energy weapons? Unless it's a flying battlehip it's gonna get smoked. Yup. When it comes to lasers, thermal capacity is the name of the game. ... or reflective surfaces.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/Lockheed_F-104A-10-LO_060928-F-1234S-011.jpg/800px-Lockheed_F-104A-10-LO_060928-F-1234S-011.jpg Nope. Care to take a guess what % of light you can reflect? Non-technical answer: Not nearly enough to protect a missile. You're better off going with ablative armor... But ablative armor trades mass for survival time, and against a well aimed and focused MW class laser, the required mass for any meaningful survival time is painfully heavy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 11:44:41 PM EDT
[#42]
Remind me to put a giant party fog machine on our future-proof BB to diffuse lasers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 11:48:06 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Remind me to put a giant party fog machine on our future-proof BB to diffuse lasers. That's exactly why you probably can't use >MW class lasers on a CVN... A cloud of smoke or rain or whatever in the beam path and suddenly everyone on deck is blind and sunburned.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 11:52:56 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are threat weapons deployed now that would sink a BB fairly quickly. I understand this may be difficult for most of you guys to grasp, but the BBs would be very vulnerable. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Here's a pic that sort of shows why BB's radically different structure of the hull makes them more survivable/ recoverable. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/Seamanship/img/Seamanship-4-3.jpg Here's the Zumwalt for comparison. http://www.theforecaster.net/files/imagecache/large/2011/11/22/m-bath-biw-zumwalt-cross-section.jpg There are threat weapons deployed now that would sink a BB fairly quickly. I understand this may be difficult for most of you guys to grasp, but the BBs would be very vulnerable. Perhaps. We should still tow an Iowa class up outside third world shitholes and shell them occasionally though, just for old times sake and to keep them on their toes. Can we at least agree on that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2014 12:01:08 AM EDT
[#45]
Let's bring back muskets and horse cavalry while we're at it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2014 12:02:51 AM EDT
[#46]
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. Well, that just may turn out to be the case. I don't see how carriers could survive in a war between nations with advanced anti-ship missiles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2014 12:05:20 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Remind me to put a giant party fog machine on our future-proof BB to diffuse lasers. Ah. Now you're talking. So, you mean to convert your BB into a party boat. That's more in line with a BB's current capabilities. Should have said that in the very beginning.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2014 12:05:40 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, that just may turn out to be the case. I don't see how carriers could survive in a war between nations with advanced anti-ship missiles. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: snip Well, that just may turn out to be the case. I don't see how carriers could survive in a war between nations with advanced anti-ship missiles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2014 12:13:40 AM EDT
[#49]
One interesting thing to note, is that Battleships are still popular tourist attractions, and that some like the NC operate on tourist funds, which are enough to things like construct dry docks around the ship for hull repairs, and general up-keep.
I believe that the population would support bringing back battleships for no other purpose than just to have them. Hell, sell tours on them for deployments... I bet you could man half the crew with volunteers, while the other half pay to be there!  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2014 12:18:22 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nope. Care to take a guess what % of light you can reflect? Non-technical answer: Not nearly enough to protect a missile. You're better off going with ablative armor... But ablative armor trades mass for survival time, and against a well aimed and focused MW class laser, the required mass for any meaningful survival time is painfully heavy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wouldn't matter if they can't take a hit. Unless it's a flying battlehip it's gonna get smoked. Yup. When it comes to lasers, thermal capacity is the name of the game. ... or reflective surfaces.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/Lockheed_F-104A-10-LO_060928-F-1234S-011.jpg/800px-Lockheed_F-104A-10-LO_060928-F-1234S-011.jpg Nope. Care to take a guess what % of light you can reflect? Non-technical answer: Not nearly enough to protect a missile. You're better off going with ablative armor... But ablative armor trades mass for survival time, and against a well aimed and focused MW class laser, the required mass for any meaningful survival time is painfully heavy. From imaginary weapons? Technically, it depends on the reflectivity at the wave length used. |
|
|
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.
