User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 6:32:38 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We also need sub carriers. 
http://www.igorstshirts.com/blog/conceptships/2011/dyatomi/dyatomi_03.jpg Now that, that is an interesting idea. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 6:38:46 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I know this is troll dport thread but.... Lasers as a weapons concept aren't all that awesome imho, wouldn't be very effective beyond line of sight/horizon, and they are horribly innefficient input-> output energy wise. Rail guns would be more useful imho, you could shoot them MUCH further. We will always have a use for projectile weapons due to the need to engage things in defilade, etc Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I wanna see battleships with big ass rail guns and frickin' lasers powered by a nuclear reactor. I know this is troll dport thread but.... Lasers as a weapons concept aren't all that awesome imho, wouldn't be very effective beyond line of sight/horizon, and they are horribly innefficient input-> output energy wise. Rail guns would be more useful imho, you could shoot them MUCH further. We will always have a use for projectile weapons due to the need to engage things in defilade, etc  Anyways, lazors are awesome, especially if you have the energy and capacity to power them (say, a giant boat full of nuke reactors and capacitor banks) On my little boat of dreams I would see lasers taking over the roll of things like the CIWIS and RAM for exatly as you put it, line of sight. The advantage lasers have is that while yes, they are inefficient, they can shoot a lot, and continuously with a VERY fast time on target. I like rail and coil guns as well, but they have an issue with coil breakdown and with rail gun wear on the rails. Which makes them perfect for over the horizon stuff. I see both working in concert as well as integrating traditional weapons for a long time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 6:41:06 PM EDT
[#3]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 6:49:15 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. 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. When an LCS can destroy a BB with a nice Norwegian NLOS-type ASM, BBs are no longer worth the tradeoff in expense of men and material that could be lost vs. a shitty, undermanned LCS. And lets face it, both the LCS and BB are equally as likely to be used in their intended roles on the modern battlefield  ETA: The Admiral Belgrano sucked, and the BAP Almirante Grau (CLM-81) is a worthless, floating anachronism. The BBs could've been useful on Libya in 2011.....or we could use any cruise-missile equipped DD to similar effect with a more versatile, maneuverable vessel, that if lost in combat would be less men/material lost at sea. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 6:55:54 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Hate's right. When an LCS can destroy a BB with a nice Norwegian NLOS-type ASM, BBs are no longer worth the tradeoff in expense of men and material that could be lost vs. a shitty, undermanned LCS. And lets face it, both the LCS and BB are equally as likely to be used in their intended roles on the modern battlefield Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: They're a little obsolete with the advent of long range anti-ship missiles, armed drones, carriers, and attack subs. 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. When an LCS can destroy a BB with a nice Norwegian NLOS-type ASM, BBs are no longer worth the tradeoff in expense of men and material that could be lost vs. a shitty, undermanned LCS. And lets face it, both the LCS and BB are equally as likely to be used in their intended roles on the modern battlefield Is he, and by extension you applying the architecture of smaller less robust ships and how they react to taking damage to capitol ships like Carriers and BB's? As far as likelihood of use, if that is a factor for what ships are worth using, then what is the point of having the majority of our fleet? BB's are no different than any other ship in the fleet in general, save thier method of construction being fundamentally differnt with reguards to where the strength comes from. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 7:10:58 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Battleship Cove was a fun place as a kid. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
USS Massachusetts- Battleship Cove was a fun place as a kid. I see a pic of the armored pilot house door in the conning tower. Can one enter the door at the top? USS Alabama's top door is closed. I want to see these restored. I also would like to sit in the gun director's seat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 7:20:32 PM EDT
[#7]
What we really need are aircraft carrier carriers. A massive vessel that transports around several aircraft carriers, keeping them perfectly safe and maintained until they are launched out a ginormous well deck
Has been a dream of mine for years 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 7:29:49 PM EDT
[#8]
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. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 7:33:35 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I see a pic of the armored pilot house door in the conning tower. Can one enter the door at the top? USS Alabama's top door is closed. I want to see these restored. I also would like to sit in the gun director's seat. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
USS Massachusetts- Battleship Cove was a fun place as a kid. I see a pic of the armored pilot house door in the conning tower. Can one enter the door at the top? USS Alabama's top door is closed. I want to see these restored. I also would like to sit in the gun director's seat. I visited Battleship Cove maybe 10 years ago (though to see PTs - I didn't even know there was battleship there) and I felt like I had a free-run of the ship. It was a very impressive thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 7:39:47 PM EDT
[#10]
/thread |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 7:42:29 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote Historymeh, texas |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 7:47:40 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I know this is troll dport thread but.... Lasers as a weapons concept aren't all that awesome imho, wouldn't be very effective beyond line of sight/horizon, and they are horribly innefficient input-> output energy wise. Rail guns would be more useful imho, you could shoot them MUCH further. We will always have a use for projectile weapons due to the need to engage things in defilade, etc Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I wanna see battleships with big ass rail guns and frickin' lasers powered by a nuclear reactor. I know this is troll dport thread but.... Lasers as a weapons concept aren't all that awesome imho, wouldn't be very effective beyond line of sight/horizon, and they are horribly innefficient input-> output energy wise. Rail guns would be more useful imho, you could shoot them MUCH further. We will always have a use for projectile weapons due to the need to engage things in defilade, etc Back to the point of this thread- Battleships are a huge waste of manpower and resources, and they were obsolete 70 years ago. Their value in WWII wasn't in their main battery but in their capacity to mount huge numbers of AA weapons. Once railgun technology matures you can mount them on smaller platforms, since hypothetically you would out-range conventional artillery and mounting AAW missiles and CIWS mitigates the risk of hostile air/missile attack. All a battleship is is a big target just begging to get hammered by wave after wave of SSM/ASM/ballistic missile attack until they are either sunk or "mission killed". Give it up, they're gone and they aren't coming back. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 7:48:55 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is what I want to see as well. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I wanna see battleships with big ass rail guns and frickin' lasers powered by a nuclear reactor. Fuck yeah man. Military
FEL technology is being evaluated by the US Navy as a candidate for an antiaircraft and missile directed-energy weapon. The Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility's FEL has demonstrated over 14 kW power output.[27] Compact multi-megawatt class FEL weapons are undergoing research.[28] On June 9, 2009 the Office of Naval Research announced it had awarded Raytheon a contract to develop a 100 kW experimental FEL.[29] On March 18, 2010 Boeing Directed Energy Systems announced the completion of an initial design for U.S. Naval use.[30] A prototype FEL system was demonstrated, with a full-power prototype scheduled by 2018. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 7:58:18 PM EDT
[#14]
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. I'm with you, if we are going to fight a WAR ... Let's get on with it and stop these politically correct skirmishes. Starting with ISIS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 8:01:45 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If an LCS can destroy a BB with an ASM, can it destroy a Carrier? If so does that render carriers obsolete? Is he, and by extension you applying the architecture of smaller less robust ships and how they react to taking damage to capitol ships like Carriers and BB's? As far as likelihood of use, if that is a factor for what ships are worth using, then what is the point of having the majority of our fleet? BB's are no different than any other ship in the fleet in general, save thier method of construction being fundamentally differnt with reguards to where the strength comes from. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: They're a little obsolete with the advent of long range anti-ship missiles, armed drones, carriers, and attack subs. 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. When an LCS can destroy a BB with a nice Norwegian NLOS-type ASM, BBs are no longer worth the tradeoff in expense of men and material that could be lost vs. a shitty, undermanned LCS. And lets face it, both the LCS and BB are equally as likely to be used in their intended roles on the modern battlefield Is he, and by extension you applying the architecture of smaller less robust ships and how they react to taking damage to capitol ships like Carriers and BB's? As far as likelihood of use, if that is a factor for what ships are worth using, then what is the point of having the majority of our fleet? BB's are no different than any other ship in the fleet in general, save thier method of construction being fundamentally differnt with reguards to where the strength comes from. The LCS is a POS, but it can take out a BB with ASM. 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. BBs take more manpower and maintenance than damn near anything afloat, and the rational cost/benefit analysis just makes them keep losing. The majority of our fleet can do a number of things that BBs cannot, and BBs can do things--surface bombardment--that if we were really insistent on getting a surface vessel close enough to shore/within A2AD range to perform, would 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, because bureaucratic institutions will turf war like never before if the role of either is threatened. If you're talking about "intended purpose" for a number of other vessels, they get used for their intended purposes all the time. Even boomers play a role in deterrence, merely by existing, and 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 for being much more maintenance intensive, archaic, old, more difficult to source parts, staffing, and logistical train to support. Their mere size and prestige instantly relegates them to capital ship status, and thereby a massive floating target.....except that it brings none of the benefits of a CVN, and all that a BB could bring to the table--surface bombardment--could 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? Sorry, but BBs still lose. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 8:06:09 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry, but BBs still lose. Not with frickin' lasers they don't. How do you plan to destroy a battleship with advanced missile tracking capabilities and a laser than can destroy an incoming ASM fairly quickly? At that point you're looking at torpedoes or ANOTHER BIG FREAKING BATTLESHIP!  Battleships bring more battleships to the seas! It'll be a new golden age in naval warfare!  Technology isn't stagnant. Cruise missiles and aircraft will not rule supreme forever.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 8:16:52 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not with frickin' lasers they don't. How do you plan to destroy a battleship with advanced missile tracking capabilities and a laser than can destroy an incoming ASM fairly quickly? At that point you're looking at torpedoes or ANOTHER BIG FREAKING BATTLESHIP! Battleships bring more battleships to the seas! It'll be a new golden age in naval warfare! Technology isn't stagnant. Cruise missiles and aircraft will not rule supreme forever.Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Sorry, but BBs still lose. Not with frickin' lasers they don't. How do you plan to destroy a battleship with advanced missile tracking capabilities and a laser than can destroy an incoming ASM fairly quickly? At that point you're looking at torpedoes or ANOTHER BIG FREAKING BATTLESHIP! Battleships bring more battleships to the seas! It'll be a new golden age in naval warfare! Technology isn't stagnant. Cruise missiles and aircraft will not rule supreme forever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 8:16:55 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not with frickin' lasers they don't. How do you plan to destroy a battleship with advanced missile tracking capabilities and a laser than can destroy an incoming ASM fairly quickly? At that point you're looking at torpedoes or ANOTHER BIG FREAKING BATTLESHIP! Battleships bring more battleships to the seas! It'll be a new golden age in naval warfare! Technology isn't stagnant. Cruise missiles and aircraft will not rule supreme forever.Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Sorry, but BBs still lose. Not with frickin' lasers they don't. How do you plan to destroy a battleship with advanced missile tracking capabilities and a laser than can destroy an incoming ASM fairly quickly? At that point you're looking at torpedoes or ANOTHER BIG FREAKING BATTLESHIP! Battleships bring more battleships to the seas! It'll be a new golden age in naval warfare! Technology isn't stagnant. Cruise missiles and aircraft will not rule supreme forever.How do you overwhelm a laser? Two ASMs. How do you overwhelm two ASMs? Two Lasers. How do you overwhelm two Lasers? Three ASMs. At some point, there's not enough power to prevent a swarm, and those numbers of ASMs WILL be cheaper than your battleship and 87 reactors used to power everything. It's the same argument in the anti ballistic missile world--the edge will always go to the attacker in terms of ease and cost. Also, what you're talking about sounds awesome, but only something built with the same powerplant as the Zumwalt class will generate enough power to do it--which means you'd need to gut a BB's propulsion, which increase the cost and derp factor. Again--BBs, while cool, lose on the logical cost/benefit calculations. ETA: Your proposition would do more to defeat the purpose of aircraft carriers. Aircraft can't do much if they're destroyed the second they come over the horizon, and without aircraft, and aircraft carrier is dumb. AT THAT POINT--perhaps something that brings more kinetic energy to the table might matter, because lasers aren't going to be able to sink a surface vessel for a while. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 8:24:53 PM EDT
[#19]
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. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 8:27:23 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That... is pretty hot. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Future battleship. Lets build it.
http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/012/7/4/0den_wip_3_by_AlxShipyards.jpg exactly what I said 
rail gun main armament? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 8:27:41 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All of those reactors are enormous and have very low power densities for naval propulsion purposes. Modular?? No thanks. Don't fuck with what Rickover made right the first time. why wasn't THIS the first post? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 8:28:13 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryAlso the only dreadnought battleship left. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 8:29:52 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryGotta admit, that fucking thing is beautiful. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 8:32:57 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What makes you think we'll ever get to that point when there's welfare rats that need funding? And the naval equivalent of lockmart doing the palm-greasing for another Zumwalt class that supports more jobs than refurbing an old hunk of shit? How do you overwhelm a laser? Two ASMs. How do you overwhelm two ASMs? Two Lasers. How do you overwhelm two Lasers? Three ASMs. At some point, there's not enough power to prevent a swarm, and those numbers of ASMs WILL be cheaper than your battleship and 87 reactors used to power everything. It's the same argument in the anti ballistic missile world--the edge will always go to the attacker in terms of ease and cost. Also, what you're talking about sounds awesome, but only something built with the same powerplant as the Zumwalt class will generate enough power to do it--which means you'd need to gut a BB's propulsion, which increase the cost and derp factor. Again--BBs, while cool, lose on the logical cost/benefit calculations. ETA: Your proposition would do more to defeat the purpose of aircraft carriers. Aircraft can't do much if they're destroyed the second they come over the horizon, and without aircraft, and aircraft carrier is dumb. AT THAT POINT--perhaps something that brings more kinetic energy to the table might matter, because lasers aren't going to be able to sink a surface vessel for a while. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sorry, but BBs still lose. Not with frickin' lasers they don't. How do you plan to destroy a battleship with advanced missile tracking capabilities and a laser than can destroy an incoming ASM fairly quickly? At that point you're looking at torpedoes or ANOTHER BIG FREAKING BATTLESHIP! Battleships bring more battleships to the seas! It'll be a new golden age in naval warfare! Technology isn't stagnant. Cruise missiles and aircraft will not rule supreme forever.How do you overwhelm a laser? Two ASMs. How do you overwhelm two ASMs? Two Lasers. How do you overwhelm two Lasers? Three ASMs. At some point, there's not enough power to prevent a swarm, and those numbers of ASMs WILL be cheaper than your battleship and 87 reactors used to power everything. It's the same argument in the anti ballistic missile world--the edge will always go to the attacker in terms of ease and cost. Also, what you're talking about sounds awesome, but only something built with the same powerplant as the Zumwalt class will generate enough power to do it--which means you'd need to gut a BB's propulsion, which increase the cost and derp factor. Again--BBs, while cool, lose on the logical cost/benefit calculations. ETA: Your proposition would do more to defeat the purpose of aircraft carriers. Aircraft can't do much if they're destroyed the second they come over the horizon, and without aircraft, and aircraft carrier is dumb. AT THAT POINT--perhaps something that brings more kinetic energy to the table might matter, because lasers aren't going to be able to sink a surface vessel for a while. We'll just up the ante with CIWS with a rapid fire railgun.  But yeah, I do believe that carriers will have limited use against nations that are a real threat if/when laser based AA defenses are plausible and practical.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 8:33:13 PM EDT
[#25]
I know they're outdated but I would love to see the BB remodeled, but retaining the 16" guns... because sometimes you just need to park a battleship off the shore of a foreign land and blow the living shit out of things...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 8:34:17 PM EDT
[#26]
Big guns drive me nuts
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 8:39:17 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
exactly what I said
rail gun main armament? http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/012/7/4/0den_wip_3_by_AlxShipyards.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Future battleship. Lets build it.
http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/012/7/4/0den_wip_3_by_AlxShipyards.jpg exactly what I said
rail gun main armament? http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/012/7/4/0den_wip_3_by_AlxShipyards.jpg fuck yeah, rail guns FTW! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 8:43:09 PM EDT
[#28]
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.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 8:51:41 PM EDT
[#29]
I could see a modern battleship being a viable platform but not in the vein of the Iowas.
Take a ship half the size of a modern carrier with composite armor, one fore and i aft rail gun for meduin range combat, lots of small rail guns for close in defense, and load it up with SAMs, cruise missiles and long range anti ship missiles. Give it the ability to operate a few anti submarine helos too. It also needs a low silhouette and sensor jamming ability. You would have a great hunter of enemy shipping. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 8:53:40 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I know they're outdated but I would love to see the BB remodeled, but retaining the 16" guns... because sometimes you just need to park a battleship off the shore of a foreign land and blow the living shit out of things... And for the places that are worth attacking coastlines that DON'T have A2AD....what infrastructure do they have that warrants the 16" guns? They don't, and the smaller cannons on current USN vessels would be entirely up to the task of coastal bombardment of those shitholes. Presuming that's ever really a plan for any op that doesn't instead rely on cruise missiles from way-the-fuck farther out. Again---while awesome, BB's have no benefit there anymore. Having to physically get your hull within the ranges necessary to make use of those cannons is suicide against nations where it would matter. People invented missiles specifically to not have to get close anymore, missiles that can be launched from any surface vessel in a fleet.....which makes an LCS worth as much as a BB for that role, and the LCS is a POS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 8:56:47 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I could see a modern battleship being a viable platform but not in the vein of the Iowas. Take a ship half the size of a modern carrier with composite armor, one fore and i aft rail gun for meduin range combat, lots of small rail guns for close in defense, and load it up with SAMs, cruise missiles and long range anti ship missiles. Give it the ability to operate a few anti submarine helos too. It also needs a low silhouette and sensor jamming ability. You would have a great hunter of enemy shipping. Good thing you use the singular pronoun "it," because the procurement process would result in literally 1.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 8:57:34 PM EDT
[#32]
It would be way easier/cheaper to sink a railgun battleship with missile spam.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 8:58:53 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Like a next-gen, non-clusterfucked Zumwalt class? Good thing you use the singular pronoun "it," because the procurement process would result in literally 1.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I could see a modern battleship being a viable platform but not in the vein of the Iowas. Take a ship half the size of a modern carrier with composite armor, one fore and i aft rail gun for meduin range combat, lots of small rail guns for close in defense, and load it up with SAMs, cruise missiles and long range anti ship missiles. Give it the ability to operate a few anti submarine helos too. It also needs a low silhouette and sensor jamming ability. You would have a great hunter of enemy shipping. Good thing you use the singular pronoun "it," because the procurement process would result in literally 1.
Is the Zumwalt class that big? Off to google I go. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 9:04:44 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is the Zumwalt class that big? Off to google I go. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I could see a modern battleship being a viable platform but not in the vein of the Iowas. Take a ship half the size of a modern carrier with composite armor, one fore and i aft rail gun for meduin range combat, lots of small rail guns for close in defense, and load it up with SAMs, cruise missiles and long range anti ship missiles. Give it the ability to operate a few anti submarine helos too. It also needs a low silhouette and sensor jamming ability. You would have a great hunter of enemy shipping. Good thing you use the singular pronoun "it," because the procurement process would result in literally 1. Is the Zumwalt class that big? Off to google I go.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 9:09:21 PM EDT
[#35]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 9:12:05 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryThat old girl is real bad shape these days  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 9:18:43 PM EDT
[#37]
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. Nothing says "I love you" like a broadside of 16" guns.... Seriously, the problem with guided munitions is that they are no better than dumb ordinance when you don't have a good firing solution, or don't know exactly what you are hitting. Sometimes, you need to make the rubble bounce. The landing at Tarawa in WWII was very dicey, and this was AFTER a random 16" shell killed most of the Japanese command structure in a cave. If the navy can get its railgun operational, and get the recharge time down to something manageable, battleships start looking viable again. It would complement a fleet carrier because it could deal with anything under 200 miles, which really helps the air wings flexibility. where it would really shine is with a MEU. Harriers (and the F35 if it ever works) have pretty short legs when operating off of a WASP class deck. A railgun armed BB would really help the very small fixed wing contingent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 9:25:15 PM EDT
[#38]
Bring back the sailing frigate!!!!
Made from hand cut lumber, home grown hemp, black powder made from stale piss, no fuel needed, powered by the wind...ultimate SHTF vehicle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 9:35:08 PM EDT
[#39]
A while back I started writing something about the possibility, I never finished it. I'm lazy that way sometime. But I'm posting the part I did get around to writing...
My ultimate conclusion is that modern battleships would be way too expensive and that there is no enemy for us to use them against right now. The mighty Battleship. In many ways they were the knights of the sea. There’s an undeniable appeal to the idea of armored, gun armed warships slugging it out with other battleships. In an emotional sense, battleships are the seaborne equivalent of men in shining armor fighting with sword and lance while missile armed ships are more like rifle armed men, laying in trenches, shooting at targets they can barely see. Largely because of this emotional appeal, many people would love to see the battleships make a comeback. And emotionally I agree. I would love to see modernized battleships return and dominate the seas like they did in the old days. But how realistic is this emotional desire? To answer that question we must first define the mission of a battleship. Understanding the mission is critical because ships are built to perform some role or job. A battleship has one primary mission and that is to close with and destroy enemy capital ships by gunfire. To achieve this goal a battleship must be equipped with guns capable of destroying heavily armored enemy warships. This requires large caliber guns with a bore diameter of 14 to 18 inches. And these guns need to have a very long range as well which means the gun has to fire the projectile at a high velocity. Naturally guns like this are very heavy and generate a lot of recoil. How heavy? Well, the guns on the Iowa class battleship weighted in at about 268,000 pounds, that’s 124 tons. The guns then have to be fitted into large, heavily armored turrets capable of rapidly moving and elevating guns of that size. The battleship also must be armored so that it can survive enemy return fire. Truly massive amounts of high quality armored steel (and possibly composites) would be required in a modern battleship. The battleship also needs defenses against air attack. Considering the modern threat from missiles, the air defense systems on a battleship would have to be excellent in quality and extensive in quantity. These defenses add to the weight and cost of the ship. The battleship needs to be fast as it has to run down those enemy combat ships… or run from them as the case may be. This requires very big and very expensive engines. It takes a lot of power to push that much mass through the water at 30+ knots. Battleships also need defenses against torpedoes, but there just isn’t much a battleship can do against this threat. The only solution is to escort them with destroyers and hope for the best. Quite obviously, any meeting these requirements will be able to perform other tasks as well. These secondary missions include - Artillery support. A battleship can act as a mobile artillery platform supporting ground troops or targeting enemy costal installations. - Air defense platforms. Battleships must have strong anti aircraft defenses and it was common practice in WWII to put a battleship between the air attack and the thin skinned carriers. No doubt any modern battleship would be quite capable in the air defense role. - Convoy raiding. The Germans attempted to use battleships in this role in WWII. No doubt a battleship could sink any merchant ships that came into range in short order. - Showing the flag. Nothing says, “We are watching you” like a 50,000+ ton gun armed monster sitting off your shore. So, who is the enemy we will be fighting? Right now there is no one that can really challenge American dominance at sea. ***** |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 9:37:15 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
dport get banned?
ETA: I found the threads. lol, WTF? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 10:02:13 PM EDT
[#41]
What we need are submersible aircraft carriers and battleships.
Don't have to go deep, just a little bit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 10:02:49 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ETA: I found the threads. lol, WTF? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
dport get banned?
ETA: I found the threads. lol, WTF? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 10:05:36 PM EDT
[#43]
Love the Iowa class, I saw the New Jersey pound Druze and Syrian forces in Beirut. I was lucky enough to get out to the ship to see Bob Hope on Christmas. I'm getting old.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 10:13:10 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bring back the sailing frigate!!!! http://imgdump1.novarata.net/image.php?di=TDGI Made from hand cut lumber, home grown hemp, black powder made from stale piss, no fuel needed, powered by the wind...ultimate SHTF vehicle. bring it back? they still sail 
USS Constitution baby!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 10:13:21 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 10:14:57 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Carriers are threatened by everything on the ocean, and carriers threaten everything on the ocean, because of their ability to bring aircraft--and by extension, airborne ISR--to the playing field. So they are limited to the range of their aircraft, and their aircraft's ability to operate. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. The majority of our fleet can do a number of things that BBs cannot, and BBs can do things--surface bombardment--that if we were really insistent on getting a surface vessel close enough to shore/within A2AD range to perform, would 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, because bureaucratic institutions will turf war like never before if the role of either is threatened. If you're talking about "intended purpose" for a number of other vessels, they get used for their intended purposes all the time. Even boomers play a role in deterrence, merely by existing, and 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 for being much more maintenance intensive, archaic, old, more difficult to source parts, staffing, and logistical train to support. Their mere size and prestige instantly relegates them to capital ship status, and thereby a massive floating target.....except that it brings none of the benefits of a CVN, and all that a BB could bring to the table--surface bombardment--could 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... Sorry, but BBs still lose. Quote HistoryQuoted: snip So they are limited to the range of their aircraft, and their aircraft's ability to operate. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. The majority of our fleet can do a number of things that BBs cannot, and BBs can do things--surface bombardment--that if we were really insistent on getting a surface vessel close enough to shore/within A2AD range to perform, would 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, because bureaucratic institutions will turf war like never before if the role of either is threatened. If you're talking about "intended purpose" for a number of other vessels, they get used for their intended purposes all the time. Even boomers play a role in deterrence, merely by existing, and 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 for being much more maintenance intensive, archaic, old, more difficult to source parts, staffing, and logistical train to support. Their mere size and prestige instantly relegates them to capital ship status, and thereby a massive floating target.....except that it brings none of the benefits of a CVN, and all that a BB could bring to the table--surface bombardment--could 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... Sorry, but BBs still lose. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 10:17:28 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: snip ETA: Your proposition would do more to defeat the purpose of aircraft carriers. Aircraft can't do much if they're destroyed the second they come over the horizon, and without aircraft, and aircraft carrier is dumb. AT THAT POINT--perhaps something that brings more kinetic energy to the table might matter, because lasers aren't going to be able to sink a surface vessel for a while.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 10:18:35 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
link? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
dport get banned?
ETA: I found the threads. lol, WTF? link? Its in here somewhere. Not banned, but given a timeout to think about what he done. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1674718_After_the_dport_shoeh8ter_incident__why_can_t_we_bring_Dave_A_back_to_GD_.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 10:19:27 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Its in here somewhere. Not banned, but given a timeout to think about what he done. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1674718_After_the_dport_shoeh8ter_incident__why_can_t_we_bring_Dave_A_back_to_GD_.html Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
dport get banned?
ETA: I found the threads. lol, WTF? link? Its in here somewhere. Not banned, but given a timeout to think about what he done. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1674718_After_the_dport_shoeh8ter_incident__why_can_t_we_bring_Dave_A_back_to_GD_.html THX |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 10:22:18 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryI thought WW1 battleships were called "Dreadnaughts"?
|
|
|
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.
