User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 5:45:17 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because saying that lasers won't be ready for prime time for the better part of a decade is the same as saying that lasers will never matter. Want to shoot down model airplanes or set stationary small boats on fire? LAWS will do that just fine today, ar least if he boat doesn't maneuver/move. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Easiest way to defend against the laser is the same way you defend against a missile or a gun - disrupt the Detect/Track system. When you can't do that, outmaneuver the system that points the laser. You're going to need to explain how you plan to outmaneuver a weapon the requires no target lead, and can be piped to emitters on every side of a vessel... The systems built now have coverage limitations. But such limitations are not inherent to laser weapons. Rather, they are the product of extremely simple early designs, with limiting flaws. Considering it doesn't exist, it should not be that hard. If we are going with imaginary hardware, I will make my "aircraft" faster than light. Your heat and power generation problems are only slightly less of a problem. (1925) You're right, airpower will never be a threat to battleships. We shouldn't consider aircraft carriers as a significant asset or threat. (/1925) Because saying that lasers won't be ready for prime time for the better part of a decade is the same as saying that lasers will never matter. Want to shoot down model airplanes or set stationary small boats on fire? LAWS will do that just fine today, ar least if he boat doesn't maneuver/move. Soooo... Did ya miss the part where this thread is about future capabilities? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 6:10:52 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Soooo... Did ya miss the part where this thread is about future capabilities? No - my point is that this is farther in the future than most posting here think. Linking lasers to nuclear powered, armored battleships takes it from potential future capability to fantasy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 6:22:30 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No - my point is that this is farther in the future than most posting here think. Linking lasers to nuclear powered, armored battleships takes it from potential future capability to fantasy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Soooo... Did ya miss the part where this thread is about future capabilities? No - my point is that this is farther in the future than most posting here think. Linking lasers to nuclear powered, armored battleships takes it from potential future capability to fantasy. Sooo... Did you miss where the battleship is being used as an example in extreme of the radical changes lasers are bringing? The fact they hold up to any scrutiny (other than "it doesn't exist neener neener") should raise eyebrows. Do you think I really believe we're going to spend about $500 billion on a half-dozen BBNs? It's a thought experiment. Doesn't change the fact that missiles and aircraft are in for serious problems as lasers develop. Really, really serious problems. And bigger lasers are better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 6:24:05 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sooo... Did you miss where the battleship is being used as an example in extreme of the radical changes lasers are bringing? The fact they hold up to any scrutiny should raise eyebrows. Guess you've missed the half dozen or more Madcap threads on bringing back battleships. He's the OP here, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 6:30:08 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Guess you've missed the half dozen or more Madcap threads on bringing back battleships. He's the OP here, right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Sooo... Did you miss where the battleship is being used as an example in extreme of the radical changes lasers are bringing? The fact they hold up to any scrutiny should raise eyebrows. Guess you've missed the half dozen or more Madcap threads on bringing back battleships. He's the OP here, right? Madcap: Trollolololololo, lololol, lololol. 
It's a thread trolling a guy who got locked for trolling... Trollception. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 8:09:08 AM EDT
[#6]
Bringing back the battleship is perfectly sensible and indeed follows the logic of symmetric response.
How else can you challenge the Chinese Hochseeflotte and its fleet of dreadnoughts? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 11:49:22 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Madcap: Trollolololololo, lololol, lololol.
It's a thread trolling a guy who got locked for trolling... Trollception. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sooo... Did you miss where the battleship is being used as an example in extreme of the radical changes lasers are bringing? The fact they hold up to any scrutiny should raise eyebrows. Guess you've missed the half dozen or more Madcap threads on bringing back battleships. He's the OP here, right? Madcap: Trollolololololo, lololol, lololol.
It's a thread trolling a guy who got locked for trolling... Trollception. I'm also not a CVN zealot. I think it's sad that US ships haven't significantly upgraded their ability to kill other combatants since the 80s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 12:35:06 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Madcap: Trollolololololo, lololol, lololol. It's a thread trolling a guy who got locked for trolling... Trollception. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Sooo... Did you miss where the battleship is being used as an example in extreme of the radical changes lasers are bringing? The fact they hold up to any scrutiny should raise eyebrows. Guess you've missed the half dozen or more Madcap threads on bringing back battleships. He's the OP here, right? Madcap: Trollolololololo, lololol, lololol. It's a thread trolling a guy who got locked for trolling... Trollception. But apparently someone volunteered to take their place.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 12:36:19 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Guess you've missed the half dozen or more Madcap threads on bringing back battleships. He's the OP here, right? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Sooo... Did you miss where the battleship is being used as an example in extreme of the radical changes lasers are bringing? The fact they hold up to any scrutiny should raise eyebrows. Guess you've missed the half dozen or more Madcap threads on bringing back battleships. He's the OP here, right? I see your knowledge of me is as well read as it is of energy weapons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 1:25:44 PM EDT
[#10]
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1659524_Naval_Guns___Now_More_Than_Ever.html&page=2#i49046528
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1295074__ARCHIVED_THREAD____BB61_USS_Iowa.html&page=1#i32659619 http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1202406__ARCHIVED_THREAD____Has_the_USMC_Harrier_ever____.html&page=12#i29010892 Only meant that you participated, not that you originated. It's like you think that if you say BATTLESHIP three times, one will appear
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 2:49:46 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Soooo... Did ya miss the part where this thread is about future capabilities? How far in the future? http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2013IAMD/Horn.pdf Go to slide 17. I don't see DE anywhere in that slide. Not like LaWS is a secret. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 7:08:47 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How far in the future? http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2013IAMD/Horn.pdf Go to slide 17. I don't see DE anywhere in that slide. Not like LaWS is a secret. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Soooo... Did ya miss the part where this thread is about future capabilities? How far in the future? http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2013IAMD/Horn.pdf Go to slide 17. I don't see DE anywhere in that slide. Not like LaWS is a secret. http://www.navsea.navy.mil/nswc/dahlgren/SPLAN/SPLAN.pdf |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 7:26:59 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Soooo... Did ya miss the part where this thread is about future capabilities? How far in the future? http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2013IAMD/Horn.pdf Go to slide 17. I don't see DE anywhere in that slide. Not like LaWS is a secret. http://www.navsea.navy.mil/nswc/dahlgren/SPLAN/SPLAN.pdf LOL. I work with NSWC DD folks several times per week. NSWC DD doesn't decide what goes on ships, PEO IWS and the program managers that work for him do. You know, the guy whose brief I linked. Dahlgren does science projects, not make calls about what gets fielded. Great guys and engineers, but not acquisition decision makers. In fact, they are often marginalized within NAVSEA. Also, youR slides don't mention anything about a fielding date. They say that NSWC DD will be working the project over ther next 5 years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 7:33:54 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: LOL. I work with NSWC DD folks several times per week. NSWC DD doesn't decide what goes on ships, PEO IWS and the program managers that work for him do. You know, the guy whose brief I linked. Dahlgren does science projects, not make calls about what gets fielded. Great guys and engineers, but not acquisition decision makers. In fact, they are often marginalized within NAVSEA. Also, youR slides don't mention anything about a fielding date. They say that NSWC DD will be working the project over ther next 5 years. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Soooo... Did ya miss the part where this thread is about future capabilities? How far in the future? http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2013IAMD/Horn.pdf Go to slide 17. I don't see DE anywhere in that slide. Not like LaWS is a secret. http://www.navsea.navy.mil/nswc/dahlgren/SPLAN/SPLAN.pdf LOL. I work with NSWC DD folks several times per week. NSWC DD doesn't decide what goes on ships, PEO IWS and the program managers that work for him do. You know, the guy whose brief I linked. Dahlgren does science projects, not make calls about what gets fielded. Great guys and engineers, but not acquisition decision makers. In fact, they are often marginalized within NAVSEA. Also, youR slides don't mention anything about a fielding date. They say that NSWC DD will be working the project over ther next 5 years. Sounds like PEO IWS is the bottleneck then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 7:35:38 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But they talk about the abstract undefined future. Sounds like PEO IWS is the bottleneck then. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Soooo... Did ya miss the part where this thread is about future capabilities? How far in the future? http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2013IAMD/Horn.pdf Go to slide 17. I don't see DE anywhere in that slide. Not like LaWS is a secret. http://www.navsea.navy.mil/nswc/dahlgren/SPLAN/SPLAN.pdf LOL. I work with NSWC DD folks several times per week. NSWC DD doesn't decide what goes on ships, PEO IWS and the program managers that work for him do. You know, the guy whose brief I linked. Dahlgren does science projects, not make calls about what gets fielded. Great guys and engineers, but not acquisition decision makers. In fact, they are often marginalized within NAVSEA. Also, youR slides don't mention anything about a fielding date. They say that NSWC DD will be working the project over ther next 5 years. Sounds like PEO IWS is the bottleneck then. No PEO IWS builds what the requirements officers in OPNAV N96 pay him to build. You're kinda like a marinized CMJohnson  . Battleships instead of F-16s
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 7:56:29 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No PEO IWS builds what the requirements officers in OPNAV N96 pay him to build. You're kinda like a marinized CMJohnson . Battleships instead of F-16sQuote HistoryQuoted: snip No PEO IWS builds what the requirements officers in OPNAV N96 pay him to build. You're kinda like a marinized CMJohnson . Battleships instead of F-16sI just like fucking shit up. BB's do it well, have always done it well, and would have continued to do it well. IMHO if civilian non-profits can maintain them to include major work through tourist donations, then the Navy could have done a pretty good job too. Maybe that should be the Direction... Activate BB's but in civilian hands, and utilize them for emerging technology so that way they'll be ready to go when needed, not waiting 30-40 years to get through the bureaucratic system in place now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 9:28:07 PM EDT
[#17]
Yes we should but make new ones for our new long range rail gun system. Will even be more powerful than before.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2014 9:30:09 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes we should but make new ones for our new long range rail gun system. Will even be more powerful than before. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2014 1:16:54 AM EDT
[#19]
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. This. ...but also, there would be a place for a nuclear-shell-armed battleship- yes? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2014 1:29:32 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes we should but make new ones for our new long range rail gun system. Will even be more powerful than before. Railguns are inherently unsuited to a reusable gun system. They will never be a long service life gun system. As a single shot scramjet missile launch tube, it has potential. But railsguns as actual guns is junk science. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2014 1:32:02 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. ...but also, there would be a place for a nuclear-shell-armed battleship- yes? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. This. ...but also, there would be a place for a nuclear-shell-armed battleship- yes? Already been done. New ones for my Mk7A1 smoothbore, with incredible scramjet-boosted range, could be built. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2014 1:38:31 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This. ...but also, there would be a place for a nuclear-shell-armed battleship- yes? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. This. ...but also, there would be a place for a nuclear-shell-armed battleship- yes?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 12:03:17 AM EDT
[#23]
It's happening!!!!!
http://mobile.seattletimes.com/story/today/2024789901/track-ip_news_lite-1.2.2-./ Now just need to think how to cram a few guns into them. For a couple thousand Dollars more on top of the ticket price the tourists could be trained and man the weapons. Self-sustaining fleet. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 8:44:51 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But they talk about the abstract undefined future. Sounds like PEO IWS is the bottleneck then. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Soooo... Did ya miss the part where this thread is about future capabilities? How far in the future? http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2013IAMD/Horn.pdf Go to slide 17. I don't see DE anywhere in that slide. Not like LaWS is a secret. http://www.navsea.navy.mil/nswc/dahlgren/SPLAN/SPLAN.pdf LOL. I work with NSWC DD folks several times per week. NSWC DD doesn't decide what goes on ships, PEO IWS and the program managers that work for him do. You know, the guy whose brief I linked. Dahlgren does science projects, not make calls about what gets fielded. Great guys and engineers, but not acquisition decision makers. In fact, they are often marginalized within NAVSEA. Also, youR slides don't mention anything about a fielding date. They say that NSWC DD will be working the project over ther next 5 years. Sounds like PEO IWS is the bottleneck then. Sat in a briefing with the CO of NSWC DD and a couple of his lead engineers. "Several" was used to describe the number of years until there will be a laser of sufficient power and compactness to shoot down ASCMs in a tactically relevant context. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:20:25 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sat in a briefing with the CO of NSWC DD and a couple of his lead engineers. "Several" was used to describe the number of years until there will be a laser of sufficient power and compactness to shoot down ASCMs in a tactically relevant context. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How far in the future? http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2013IAMD/Horn.pdf Go to slide 17. I don't see DE anywhere in that slide. Not like LaWS is a secret. http://www.navsea.navy.mil/nswc/dahlgren/SPLAN/SPLAN.pdf LOL. I work with NSWC DD folks several times per week. NSWC DD doesn't decide what goes on ships, PEO IWS and the program managers that work for him do. You know, the guy whose brief I linked. Dahlgren does science projects, not make calls about what gets fielded. Great guys and engineers, but not acquisition decision makers. In fact, they are often marginalized within NAVSEA. Also, youR slides don't mention anything about a fielding date. They say that NSWC DD will be working the project over ther next 5 years. Sounds like PEO IWS is the bottleneck then. Sat in a briefing with the CO of NSWC DD and a couple of his lead engineers. "Several" was used to describe the number of years until there will be a laser of sufficient power and compactness to shoot down ASCMs in a tactically relevant context. Annnnd? The fact it is very near future is why it matters. It's no longer decades or speculative. It's a cuspal technology. Now is the time to evaluate the implications, not post-facto. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:26:18 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Annnnd? The fact it is very near future is why it matters. It's no longer decades or speculative. It's a cuspal technology. Now is the time to evaluate the implications, not post-facto. Like at least 2 presidential elections away |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:50:19 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Like at least 2 presidential elections away Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Annnnd? The fact it is very near future is why it matters. It's no longer decades or speculative. It's a cuspal technology. Now is the time to evaluate the implications, not post-facto. Like at least 2 presidential elections away Which, considering the decades of lag in major item DoD procurement, it seems like analyzing the implications this has on aircraft and ships would be a good thing to start right now... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 7:29:53 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. ...but also, there would be a place for a nuclear-shell-armed battleship- yes? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. This. ...but also, there would be a place for a nuclear-shell-armed battleship- yes? Bring back the W23 16" Nuclear Artillery shell!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 7:32:37 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Which, considering the decades of lag in major item DoD procurement, it seems like analyzing the implications this has on aircraft and ships would be a good thing to start right now... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Annnnd? The fact it is very near future is why it matters. It's no longer decades or speculative. It's a cuspal technology. Now is the time to evaluate the implications, not post-facto. Like at least 2 presidential elections away Which, considering the decades of lag in major item DoD procurement, it seems like analyzing the implications this has on aircraft and ships would be a good thing to start right now... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 8:13:17 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know right? It's almost like bureaucratic thinking, and in the box thinking multiplied by promoting high ranking officers to pick directions that will land them a defense contractor gig when they retire drives procrument more than mission.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Annnnd? The fact it is very near future is why it matters. It's no longer decades or speculative. It's a cuspal technology. Now is the time to evaluate the implications, not post-facto. Like at least 2 presidential elections away Which, considering the decades of lag in major item DoD procurement, it seems like analyzing the implications this has on aircraft and ships would be a good thing to start right now...
So for the next four years at least, here is your choice: a 5" gun that can do surface warfare, air warfare and NGFS or a laser that can shoot down UAVs that are above the horizon and not that far away. Which do you want? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 8:56:47 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So for the next four years at least, here is your choice: a 5" gun that can do surface warfare, air warfare and NGFS or a laser that can shoot down UAVs that are above the horizon and not that far away. Which do you want? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: snip So for the next four years at least, here is your choice: a 5" gun that can do surface warfare, air warfare and NGFS or a laser that can shoot down UAVs that are above the horizon and not that far away. Which do you want? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 10:14:49 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. ...but also, there would be a place for a nuclear-shell-armed battleship- yes? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. This. ...but also, there would be a place for a nuclear-shell-armed battleship- yes? There’s a big problem with this… The whole battleship concept if that of a heavily armed and armored warship. Now, one of the amazing and scary things I learned about nuclear weapons is that the small ones have yields that are well under 100 tons of TNT. I didn’t say 100 kilotons, but 100 tons. It seems like the 155mm nuclear artillery shell had about a 20 ton yield. Why is this a problem? Well, for starters, there is a big incentive not to use the big 100+ kiloton city killers for obvious reasons. But using small nuclear weapons might be more politically acceptable… which starts the nuclear escalation cycle until the big nukes are being used. But as far as nuclear armed battleships go, if you can shoot nuclear shells at the enemy then the enemy can shoot them back at you… Or at least they can if we are fighting an enemy with nuclear capability. And if the enemy retaliates with 20 ton yield nuclear shells then all that expensive armor isn’t going to be enough to protect a battleship. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 12:17:27 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There’s a big problem with this… The whole battleship concept if that of a heavily armed and armored warship. Now, one of the amazing and scary things I learned about nuclear weapons is that the small ones have yields that are well under 100 tons of TNT. I didn’t say 100 kilotons, but 100 tons. It seems like the 155mm nuclear artillery shell had about a 20 ton yield. Why is this a problem? Well, for starters, there is a big incentive not to use the big 100+ kiloton city killers for obvious reasons. But using small nuclear weapons might be more politically acceptable… which starts the nuclear escalation cycle until the big nukes are being used. But as far as nuclear armed battleships go, if you can shoot nuclear shells at the enemy then the enemy can shoot them back at you… Or at least they can if we are fighting an enemy with nuclear capability. And if the enemy retaliates with 20 ton yield nuclear shells then all that expensive armor isn’t going to be enough to protect a battleship. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. This. ...but also, there would be a place for a nuclear-shell-armed battleship- yes? There’s a big problem with this… The whole battleship concept if that of a heavily armed and armored warship. Now, one of the amazing and scary things I learned about nuclear weapons is that the small ones have yields that are well under 100 tons of TNT. I didn’t say 100 kilotons, but 100 tons. It seems like the 155mm nuclear artillery shell had about a 20 ton yield. Why is this a problem? Well, for starters, there is a big incentive not to use the big 100+ kiloton city killers for obvious reasons. But using small nuclear weapons might be more politically acceptable… which starts the nuclear escalation cycle until the big nukes are being used. But as far as nuclear armed battleships go, if you can shoot nuclear shells at the enemy then the enemy can shoot them back at you… Or at least they can if we are fighting an enemy with nuclear capability. And if the enemy retaliates with 20 ton yield nuclear shells then all that expensive armor isn’t going to be enough to protect a battleship. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 12:34:27 AM EDT
[#34]
What the heck?
I see this topic come up over and over. They are too old, they are too manpower intensive and they are out classed by modern weapons. Wish, want , piss or cry they are not coming back. And even though their armor is the best, you can still build a new one cheaper than ripping their guts out to redesigned the propulsion plant and upgrade any or all the systems on that boat. Still just like the Brits in the Falkland war, I'd shoot all the torpedoes into her even if it was an all conscript crew on board. Yes if it was still active it is a big threat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 12:59:27 AM EDT
[#35]
Bring back the trireme
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 1:07:29 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes it is. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. This. ...but also, there would be a place for a nuclear-shell-armed battleship- yes? There’s a big problem with this… The whole battleship concept if that of a heavily armed and armored warship. Now, one of the amazing and scary things I learned about nuclear weapons is that the small ones have yields that are well under 100 tons of TNT. I didn’t say 100 kilotons, but 100 tons. It seems like the 155mm nuclear artillery shell had about a 20 ton yield. Why is this a problem? Well, for starters, there is a big incentive not to use the big 100+ kiloton city killers for obvious reasons. But using small nuclear weapons might be more politically acceptable… which starts the nuclear escalation cycle until the big nukes are being used. But as far as nuclear armed battleships go, if you can shoot nuclear shells at the enemy then the enemy can shoot them back at you… Or at least they can if we are fighting an enemy with nuclear capability. And if the enemy retaliates with 20 ton yield nuclear shells then all that expensive armor isn’t going to be enough to protect a battleship. Crossroads Baker disagrees. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 3:31:51 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Crossroads Baker disagrees. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. This. ...but also, there would be a place for a nuclear-shell-armed battleship- yes? There’s a big problem with this… The whole battleship concept if that of a heavily armed and armored warship. Now, one of the amazing and scary things I learned about nuclear weapons is that the small ones have yields that are well under 100 tons of TNT. I didn’t say 100 kilotons, but 100 tons. It seems like the 155mm nuclear artillery shell had about a 20 ton yield. Why is this a problem? Well, for starters, there is a big incentive not to use the big 100+ kiloton city killers for obvious reasons. But using small nuclear weapons might be more politically acceptable… which starts the nuclear escalation cycle until the big nukes are being used. But as far as nuclear armed battleships go, if you can shoot nuclear shells at the enemy then the enemy can shoot them back at you… Or at least they can if we are fighting an enemy with nuclear capability. And if the enemy retaliates with 20 ton yield nuclear shells then all that expensive armor isn’t going to be enough to protect a battleship. Crossroads Baker disagrees. .... Crossroads Baker was subsurface. Completely different in effects from a nuclear shell. It simulated a nuclear mine, depth charge or torpedo. Nukes set off underwater behave very differently than ones set off in air. Likewise ones in air behave very differently than ones in space. To compare the results in different energy transfer media is silly. Without knowing the details of a nuclear artillery shell being used against a battleship, it's hard to say what the results will be. We know they can survive airbursts in close proximity (though with damage to sensitive items and exposed crew injuries). In near-impact proximity or actual impact it gets difficult to speculate, as no real testing of such an event was ever conducted, thanks to the fuck-up that was Crossroads Able. What we know: Battleships are proven to survive ~25 KT air bursting nukes if they are 600 yards from ground zero. Battleships are proven to survive ~25 KT subsurface detonations if they are 700 yards from ground zero. Battleships are proven to be at risk of being sunk by ~25KT subsurface detonations if they are less than 170 yards from ground zero. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 3:46:15 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Crossroads Baker disagrees. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: snip Crossroads Baker disagrees. 2. The Baker test showed that Battleships are strong s FUCK, even one made in 1911.  The boat as far as everyone knows is in one piece, especially the hull. There's holes and popped rivets in the exterior, and blisters ripped off and a 20' deep dent in the side but even thought it got blown in the air, lawn darted into the bottom and flipped upside down into the coral, it never cracked up. That ship was 170 yards away. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/366764.pdf But since I'm not talking about bringing back the Texas, or salvaging the Arkansas that's not particularly relevant. Speaking of.... Looks pretty good for getting nuked and sitting on bottom for almost 50 years...  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 3:54:29 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A. He was talking about nuclear shells... so I was talking more about airburst. 2. The Baker test showed that Battleships are strong s FUCK, even one made in 1911. http://sonicbomb.com/content/atomic/carc/us/crossroads/baker/limg/baker_ark.jpg The boat as far as everyone knows is in one piece, especially the hull. There's holes and popped rivets in the exterior, and blisters ripped off and a 20' deep dent in the side but even thought it got blown in the air, lawn darted into the bottom and flipped upside down into the coral, it never cracked up. That ship was 170 yards away. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/366764.pdf But since I'm not talking about bringing back the Texas, or salvaging the Arkansas that's not particularly relevant. Speaking of.... Looks pretty good for getting nuked and sitting on bottom for almost 50 years... http://youtu.be/id6unoYKCoc  http://youtu.be/id6unoYKCoc
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
snip
Crossroads Baker disagrees. 2. The Baker test showed that Battleships are strong s FUCK, even one made in 1911. http://sonicbomb.com/content/atomic/carc/us/crossroads/baker/limg/baker_ark.jpg The boat as far as everyone knows is in one piece, especially the hull. There's holes and popped rivets in the exterior, and blisters ripped off and a 20' deep dent in the side but even thought it got blown in the air, lawn darted into the bottom and flipped upside down into the coral, it never cracked up. That ship was 170 yards away. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/366764.pdf But since I'm not talking about bringing back the Texas, or salvaging the Arkansas that's not particularly relevant. Speaking of.... Looks pretty good for getting nuked and sitting on bottom for almost 50 years... http://youtu.be/id6unoYKCoc http://youtu.be/id6unoYKCoc
If that had been an airburst, I think the Arkansas would have survived. It was shock through the water that got her. Not unexpected for a subsurface detonation. Tanks have survived airbursts barely outside of the fireball. A battleship is much, much stronger, with more mass to trade for thermal survival. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 4:04:34 AM EDT
[#40]
Yup.
It was also in 180 feet of water with the bomb at 90'. Deep water might have made a differance. Interesting to note the Nevada did pretty well, yet destroyers that were further away sank... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 4:07:52 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yup. It was also in 180 feet of water with the bomb at 90'. Deep water might have made a differance. Interesting to note the Nevada did pretty well, yet destroyers that were further away sank... In comparison they are made from aluminum foil and popsicle sticks. I am not surprised.
A ship with armor also offers some decent ionizing radiation protection. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 6:16:47 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There’s a big problem with this… The whole battleship concept if that of a heavily armed and armored warship. Now, one of the amazing and scary things I learned about nuclear weapons is that the small ones have yields that are well under 100 tons of TNT. I didn’t say 100 kilotons, but 100 tons. It seems like the 155mm nuclear artillery shell had about a 20 ton yield. Why is this a problem? Well, for starters, there is a big incentive not to use the big 100+ kiloton city killers for obvious reasons. But using small nuclear weapons might be more politically acceptable… which starts the nuclear escalation cycle until the big nukes are being used. But as far as nuclear armed battleships go, if you can shoot nuclear shells at the enemy then the enemy can shoot them back at you… Or at least they can if we are fighting an enemy with nuclear capability. And if the enemy retaliates with 20 ton yield nuclear shells then all that expensive armor isn’t going to be enough to protect a battleship. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. This. ...but also, there would be a place for a nuclear-shell-armed battleship- yes? There’s a big problem with this… The whole battleship concept if that of a heavily armed and armored warship. Now, one of the amazing and scary things I learned about nuclear weapons is that the small ones have yields that are well under 100 tons of TNT. I didn’t say 100 kilotons, but 100 tons. It seems like the 155mm nuclear artillery shell had about a 20 ton yield. Why is this a problem? Well, for starters, there is a big incentive not to use the big 100+ kiloton city killers for obvious reasons. But using small nuclear weapons might be more politically acceptable… which starts the nuclear escalation cycle until the big nukes are being used. But as far as nuclear armed battleships go, if you can shoot nuclear shells at the enemy then the enemy can shoot them back at you… Or at least they can if we are fighting an enemy with nuclear capability. And if the enemy retaliates with 20 ton yield nuclear shells then all that expensive armor isn’t going to be enough to protect a battleship. W48 was 72 T yield , the W74 would have had a 100T and the W82 was a 2KT yieild |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 6:29:41 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What the heck? I see this topic come up over and over. They are too old, Says who? Your opinion? they are too manpower intensive Every time they were updated they reduced the required crew numbers. What is your definition of "too manpower intensive"? How many people do you think a ship should have to be capable 24 hours a day 7 days a week for months? How many people do you think is the minimum for damage control? How many do you think would be needed after another round of modernization? Also, do you think the Navy should be smaller? What's wrong with a ship that needs more crew? Do you hate jobs? and they are out classed by modern weapons. Expand on that. How exactly are they outclassed, but say... LHD 6 the Bonhomme Richard isn't? Did you think about that at all? If BB's are outclassed... everything is outclassed. Wish, want , piss or cry they are not coming back. So? And even though their armor is the best, you can still build a new one cheaper than ripping their guts out to redesigned the propulsion plant and upgrade any or all the systems on that boat. You know you say that, I have my doubts. What info do you hve to support it being cheaper to build a new one? We can't even build a destroyer the size of a dreadnaught with ONE TINY gun without wasting tons of money. Given my ideas, the BB's could be updated for very little comparatively. Still just like the Brits in the Falkland war, I'd shoot all the torpedoes into her even if it was an all conscript crew on board. Yes if it was still active it is a big threat. Talking about whales? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2408881/British-warship-HMS-Brilliant-torpedoed-WHALES-Falklands-War.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 7:45:44 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You just clicked on the thread and banged out a response without reading through it, didn't you? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What the heck? I see this topic come up over and over. They are too old, Says who? Your opinion? they are too manpower intensive Every time they were updated they reduced the required crew numbers. What is your definition of "too manpower intensive"? How many people do you think a ship should have to be capable 24 hours a day 7 days a week for months? How many people do you think is the minimum for damage control? How many do you think would be needed after another round of modernization? Also, do you think the Navy should be smaller? What's wrong with a ship that needs more crew? Do you hate jobs? and they are out classed by modern weapons. Expand on that. How exactly are they outclassed, but say... LHD 6 the Bonhomme Richard isn't? Did you think about that at all? If BB's are outclassed... everything is outclassed. Wish, want , piss or cry they are not coming back. So? And even though their armor is the best, you can still build a new one cheaper than ripping their guts out to redesigned the propulsion plant and upgrade any or all the systems on that boat. You know you say that, I have my doubts. What info do you hve to support it being cheaper to build a new one? We can't even build a destroyer the size of a dreadnaught with ONE TINY gun without wasting tons of money. Given my ideas, the BB's could be updated for very little comparatively. Still just like the Brits in the Falkland war, I'd shoot all the torpedoes into her even if it was an all conscript crew on board. Yes if it was still active it is a big threat. Talking about whales? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2408881/British-warship-HMS-Brilliant-torpedoed-WHALES-Falklands-War.html How many LGBT sailors would it take to crew a new battleship in your expert opinion? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 8:20:48 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How many LGBT sailors to would it take to crew a new battleship in your expert opinion? Quote HistoryQuoted: snip How many LGBT sailors to would it take to crew a new battleship in your expert opinion? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 8:45:58 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If that had been an airburst, I think the Arkansas would have survived. It was shock through the water that got her. Not unexpected for a subsurface detonation. Tanks have survived airbursts barely outside of the fireball. A battleship is much, much stronger, with more mass to trade for thermal survival. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
snip
Crossroads Baker disagrees. 2. The Baker test showed that Battleships are strong s FUCK, even one made in 1911. http://sonicbomb.com/content/atomic/carc/us/crossroads/baker/limg/baker_ark.jpg The boat as far as everyone knows is in one piece, especially the hull. There's holes and popped rivets in the exterior, and blisters ripped off and a 20' deep dent in the side but even thought it got blown in the air, lawn darted into the bottom and flipped upside down into the coral, it never cracked up. That ship was 170 yards away. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/366764.pdf But since I'm not talking about bringing back the Texas, or salvaging the Arkansas that's not particularly relevant. Speaking of.... Looks pretty good for getting nuked and sitting on bottom for almost 50 years... http://youtu.be/id6unoYKCoc http://youtu.be/id6unoYKCoc
If that had been an airburst, I think the Arkansas would have survived. It was shock through the water that got her. Not unexpected for a subsurface detonation. Tanks have survived airbursts barely outside of the fireball. A battleship is much, much stronger, with more mass to trade for thermal survival. Able was an airburst, the ships did quite well from a strict survival standpoint. They would've been floating coffins in the long term from radiation, but they survived. Even smaller ships did better than expected. That's why I said Baker. I don't think anything floating could resist suddenly finding itself without water underneath. Sure the Arkansas looked great on the ocean's floor afterward but it was sunk. It also wasn't quite an accurate comparison to the 20t shells theorized, but it was a fine match to the actual 20kt nuclear shells once used by the Iowas. The choice of airburst, contact burst, or subsurface burst is just a question of aim and fuzing though. A nuclear war will be the end of any naval vessel the enemy can locate that is worth the fizz. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 1:41:13 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A. He was talking about nuclear shells... so I was talking more about airburst. 2. The Baker test showed that Battleships are strong s FUCK, even one made in 1911. http://sonicbomb.com/content/atomic/carc/us/crossroads/baker/limg/baker_ark.jpg The boat as far as everyone knows is in one piece, especially the hull. There's holes and popped rivets in the exterior, and blisters ripped off and a 20' deep dent in the side but even thought it got blown in the air, lawn darted into the bottom and flipped upside down into the coral, it never cracked up. That ship was 170 yards away. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/366764.pdf But since I'm not talking about bringing back the Texas, or salvaging the Arkansas that's not particularly relevant. Okay... I'll give you that. A battleship might do a great job of keeping the corpses of the crew contained and easy to find after being hit by a nuclear weapon. 
|
|
|
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.
