Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Stitcher
Caldari ForgeTech Industries
|
Posted - 2010.07.09 11:36:00 -
[61]
Edited by: Stitcher on 09/07/2010 11:36:23 Made me want to join the navy tbh.
That's assuming CCP don't hire me first of course. - Verin "Stitcher" Hakatain. |
linkeleo
Fairlight Corp Rooks and Kings
|
Posted - 2010.07.09 14:54:00 -
[62]
Edited by: linkeleo on 09/07/2010 14:54:04
Originally by: Hatherley In true English style, a vast overspend for underpowered ships we spent ú1.1 billion pounds per IIRC.
paid for by the English, built by the Scottish, and the Scottish say hello by Glassin a Goon and having 6 guys jump on your head...
|
Nova Fox
Gallente Novafox Shipyards
|
Posted - 2010.07.09 23:38:00 -
[63]
Edited by: Nova Fox on 09/07/2010 23:39:48 Politicans are oftenly mistaken that oh if we build less it gets cheaper.
Operational costs aside this is mostly a false fact (operational costs vary from ship to ship from maintenance, manning, to life span of the object in question but rarely if never, is that actually USED as an argument half of the time they only see a price tag and think 'oh gee I can get votes cancelling this one'.)
Highest cost of any new military program is RnD, this cost does not change for the overall project.
So if you planned on building 10 copies and RnD is 1 billion and copies are a million a pop to build in materials that should bring the total bill to 101 million a pop. Poltiicans think well thats too expensive can we just have one instead. Congradulations that one ship is now 1billion.
Very few cases where the reverse is opposite where actaully building fewer would save money because the materials used are extremly high priced. Some extremly high tech stuff comes to mind like the B-2 Spirit bomber and the like.
A mordern (considering the tech isnt that drastically different from 20 yrs ago) Anti-air ship should not have such a high copy cost.
BTW BBC sucks and i think they're a bucnh of socialists by restricting free press by not letting other people view thier stuff as I would have loved to see the video. Pre-order your Sisters of ≡v≡ Exploration ship today, Updated 24FEB10
|
Another Liberthas
Caldari Creative Cookie Procuring Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 00:49:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Nova Fox Edited by: Nova Fox on 09/07/2010 23:39:48 BTW BBC sucks and i think they're a bucnh of socialists by restricting free press by not letting other people view thier stuff as I would have loved to see the video.
Well it's not a BBC video. It's Channel 4.
|
Nova Fox
Gallente Novafox Shipyards
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 01:48:00 -
[65]
Redirects displeasure at channel 4,
curse you channel 4 you've first plagued my childhood with inconsitent workings with my vcr and nintendo now you plauge me with denying me mental entertainment. Pre-order your Sisters of ≡v≡ Exploration ship today, Updated 24FEB10
|
Arnold Predator
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 02:13:00 -
[66]
As a yank thatÆs from a family that have all served in the USN. ItÆs about time you guys (brits) get some useful ships out there. Your ships were outdated 20 years ago and are so small that they can't do much of anything. Then again youÆre spending a lot less then the US does on your navy so good on you. 4.5 billion is what the US government tells us there spending. That being said our government is like an ex with a credit card... MAX IT OUT and stick him/her with the bill. Only this time itÆs the US taxpayers so the cost is more then the 4.5B for sure.
Its funny to think that less then 200 years ago you brits had the most feared navy around. Now its a bunch of outdated courser size ships that don't hold a candle to what most of the world has.
No troll intended but I am a yank... and ****ing people off is what we do best. ;)
|
Hatherley
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 06:07:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Arnold Predator As a yank thatÆs from a family that have all served in the USN. ItÆs about time you guys (brits) get some useful ships out there. Your ships were outdated 20 years ago and are so small that they can't do much of anything. Then again youÆre spending a lot less then the US does on your navy so good on you. 4.5 billion is what the US government tells us there spending. That being said our government is like an ex with a credit card... MAX IT OUT and stick him/her with the bill. Only this time itÆs the US taxpayers so the cost is more then the 4.5B for sure.
Its funny to think that less then 200 years ago you brits had the most feared navy around. Now its a bunch of outdated courser size ships that don't hold a candle to what most of the world has.
No troll intended but I am a yank... and ****ing people off is what we do best. ;)
You're absolutely right that our armed forces need more funding, it is painfully true, as is evidenced by our army in Iraq/Afganistan. Even as recently as the outbreak of WW2 our navy was pretty huge (larger than the USA), but that war basically drove us into ruin and saw the USA flex its rather vast industrial might, and now we have Carriers that are nearing 40 years old and the USA 11 or 12 Nimitz Supercarriers with every battlegroup being larger than our navy . The new carriers are distinctly superior to these though, more like Nimitz without the huge overkill and with better technology, I guess, and the type 45s should stop a Falklands happening to us or our Allies' ships again.
awww... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/HMS_Ark_Royal_USS_Nimitz_Norfolk1_1978.jpeg
I do envy America's funding, you even had fully fit Battleships, by now totally obsolete, until the mid 90s, the only sign of vanity needed to show the US navy was orders of magnitude more powerful than whoever was in second place.
|
Nova Fox
Gallente Novafox Shipyards
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 09:58:00 -
[68]
Battleships obsolete?
Well if you throw in a nuclear reactor, slim down the profile, incorporate some nice multiple spectrum waveform dection systems, Trimeran hull it to prevent spinal snapping with super capating torpedoes should the microwave field counter measure fails to detonate it. Slap a few good Free Electron Lasers for AA and some railguns specifically built for the battleships power system youd probably have a fearsome ship.
This ship could get support fire on spot and on demand faster and possibly outranging any fighter launchable from the carriers, and a decent zone of control least surface and anything above the surface and not be such a big or vunerable target.
Just remember before the tank was very close to becomming exticnt, rather sensless to have a multi million dollar tank destroyed by a 500$ rocket. Thank the brits with thier join innovation with the reactive armors the challengers and abrams greatly enjoy. I would love to see the hull polerized shielding and super banite magnets in action that the brits are developing for thier light weights scouts. Pre-order your Sisters of ≡v≡ Exploration ship today, Updated 24FEB10
|
Admiral Takia
Caldari Running With Scissors Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 15:44:00 -
[69]
battleship to E-4
You had a destroyer there? *admires smoking wreckage*
Just sayin'
|
baltec1
Antares Shipyards Circle-Of-Two
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 16:25:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Arnold Predator As a yank thatÆs from a family that have all served in the USN. ItÆs about time you guys (brits) get some useful ships out there. Your ships were outdated 20 years ago and are so small that they can't do much of anything. Then again youÆre spending a lot less then the US does on your navy so good on you. 4.5 billion is what the US government tells us there spending. That being said our government is like an ex with a credit card... MAX IT OUT and stick him/her with the bill. Only this time itÆs the US taxpayers so the cost is more then the 4.5B for sure.
Its funny to think that less then 200 years ago you brits had the most feared navy around. Now its a bunch of outdated courser size ships that don't hold a candle to what most of the world has.
No troll intended but I am a yank... and ****ing people off is what we do best. ;)
Yet we won what the Americans thought was an unwinnable war with our little carriers with harriers. The empire might be gone and with it the mighty fleets of our Imperial might but Britannia still rules the waves
|
|
Vogue
Skynet Nexus
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 16:36:00 -
[71]
The Falklands was a close run thing. The Admiral in charge of the fleet said that if it lasted another 2 weeks they would have lost. Systems were failing on navy ships. This is something overlooked with modern militaries - the maintenance quality of ships, tanks, fighters etc. I can't find the link but there was a league table with USA at the top with 100 and then other countries with a relative score. UK was around 76.
.................................................. Cylon cultural victor! |
Viktor Fyretracker
Caldari Fyretracker Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 20:29:00 -
[72]
The BS might be obsolete but god damn, no weapons system on any ship today will ever match the raw show of power that an Iowa Class could with a broadside. but they took way too many crew to operate for the size of ship by modern standards.
however i bet they could have refit to be nuclear powered, because they used steam turbines to drive the screws what is the difference between a boiler and a reactor? nothing really, even the Nimitz carriers are glorified steamboats.
|
Hatherley
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 21:18:00 -
[73]
indeed, aircraft carriers and subs have made battleships worse than useless as not only inferior in boom boom but as giant targets. You can't just plop a naval reactor into a conventional design either :P
And yes the Falklands was not 'easy' in the slightest (though you would never, ever expect an admiral to say anything other than something which basically means 'give us more funding' even if we were fighting a coracle with a mounted spun gun), it was a long distance from the UK and we were fighting a modern fighting force that could fight back with modern aircraft and weaponry, unlike in Iraq where a single challenger2/M1a2 could likely wipe out entire battalions of their T60 or whatever tanks. As shown by unfortunate friendly fire, a fight between modern tanks however = whoever fires/hits first wins...
|
Vogue
Skynet Nexus
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 21:27:00 -
[74]
Edited by: Vogue on 10/07/2010 21:28:19 The Japanese built the biggest ever battleships. The Yamamoto and its sister ships were 72,800 tons!
WW2 gave a learning curve to the naval technology at the time which had not been tested in large scale warfare. And radar was seen as a bit of a gimmick for a while before it was taken seriously.
Likewise I think there would be a learning curve if a big naval battle happened in our current times. I think missile spam ftw! Rather than have missiles that skim above sea level that can be taken out by those point defense gatling machine gun things why don't missiles shoot upwards. At 10,000 feet then would be directly above a target ship then zoom down.
.................................................. Cylon cultural victor! |
Viktor Fyretracker
Caldari Fyretracker Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 21:27:00 -
[75]
i dont think truely modern militaries will engage in open war for anytime in the near future. mostly because two big nations in a true war, one would likely get an ichy trigger finger on a certain weapons class and then its Defcon 1 time.. of course that is why we have proxy wars where we give smaller countries modern weapons....
|
Arianhod
Red Dwarf Mining Corporation space weaponry and trade
|
Posted - 2010.07.11 14:43:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker i dont think truely modern militaries will engage in open war for anytime in the near future. mostly because two big nations in a true war, one would likely get an ichy trigger finger on a certain weapons class and then its Defcon 1 time.. of course that is why we have proxy wars where we give smaller countries modern weapons....
Exactly, so we should maintain a modern military to make sure other modern militaries, or ones that can blob us don't get any ideas
And with regards to the number of aircraft carriers, I would have hope we would have a few more of them so we could maintain a force in each ocean, Atlandic, Pacific, Indian and home isles for starters.... I would have prefered some of the bailout money to be directed at the military, we build most of our own kit so it stimulates domestic industry.
Anyone know how an F22 (I think it was, the colaberative weapon with the yanks and a few other nations) vs the Navalised Typhoon on the supercarriers? Haruhiists - Overloading Out of Pod discussions since 2007. Haruhiists - Redeclaring open warfare on Out of Pod since 2010. |
Dimitryy
Gallente Ever Flow Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.07.11 21:36:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Arianhod Anyone know how an F22 (I think it was, the colaberative weapon with the yanks and a few other nations) vs the Navalised Typhoon on the supercarriers?
As far as i know, the F22 program was entirely US funded, and Lockheed Martin is actually under an export ban, they couldn't sell it if they wanted to. So as to the F22 facing off against the UK's Typhoon Navy Issue (seewhatididthere), it seems pretty unlikely.
What you might be thinking of is the F35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, which will be available for export immediately. (It too is American made, the 'joint' refers to the branches of armed service, rather than multiple nations). While the F35 JSF will be less stealthy, slower, and have a lower ceiling, it will supposedly sport considerably more advanced electronics.
As far as i can tell, the paper stats of the F35 and the Typhoon are similar enough to make a real definitive answer almost impossible, and i'll leave it to the fanboys to hash out every last nuance of the two aircraft.
Honestly i think it would come down to roles. If the F35s were configured to engage the Typhoon's carriers, and were thus set up to engage air to ground, they would only have their two dedicated air to air weapons available, where as the Typhoons could be launched with an entire air superiority loadout. In that case i would give it to the Phoons. Similarily if the Typhoons were engaging a ground target and the F35s were set up with a fully air to air complement, i would give it to the F35s.
-Dimi ------------------------------------------
Jack Blackstone > Dimitryy I hope you die. |
Arianhod
Red Dwarf Mining Corporation space weaponry and trade
|
Posted - 2010.07.11 22:16:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Dimitryy
Originally by: Arianhod Anyone know how an F22 (I think it was, the colaberative weapon with the yanks and a few other nations) vs the Navalised Typhoon on the supercarriers?
As far as i know, the F22 program was entirely US funded, and Lockheed Martin is actually under an export ban, they couldn't sell it if they wanted to. So as to the F22 facing off against the UK's Typhoon Navy Issue (seewhatididthere), it seems pretty unlikely.
Ah cool, thanks for the info
One thing though, I looked up the F35 and it is a collaberative weapon [source] and the main partners are "The United Kingdom, Italy, The Netherlands, Canada, Norway, Denmark, Australia and Turkey".
Haruhiists - Overloading Out of Pod discussions since 2007. Haruhiists - Redeclaring open warfare on Out of Pod since 2010. |
Rayce Farelle
|
Posted - 2010.07.12 00:44:00 -
[79]
From my point of view ( and i consider naval history my forte) there is one very specific reason why the our navy is so far inferior to aLOT of the other naval powers. It is quite complicated so bear with me . There are two sorts of naval doctrines that concern the idea of BS over Carrier. Firstly the Royal Navy was seated in the Ship-of-the-line ("Big Gun") Doctrine. This entails a heavy reliance on large vessels- namely BS and BC/CA being the mainstay of your force. 90% of the World's Navies at the time had the same doctrine. However, both the Japanese and the Americans focused much more intently on the Mobile Air Group Doctrine, with the mainstay of the fleet being centred around Aircraft Carriers, being screened by generally smaller ships-of-line - ( with the exceptions of course to the Iowa Class, Yamato Class (and maybe even the Northampton, but heh)). The first doctrine (from now i will call BG) will work effectively against the navy with a similar doctrine, but work much less effectively against a navy using a MAG doctrine. It is this reason why the Royal Navy a lacking so far behind that of the USN and others.
The reason is because after WW2, all the worlds Navies, apart from the USN had to re-equip and modernise (either because they had been wiped out- French, Italian, German, Japanese, Soviet or had been severely demoralised.). The US was in the position where they didn't have to do a major overhaul, the defeated powers, had a clean slate to start from scratch. The Royal Navy however, hadn't been too badly wounded. Therefore in keeping with what was perceived as the most successful naval doctrine (MAG) they had to completely re-modernise. That left the Royal Navy with a hand in both jars. They couldn't just scrap everything and start from scratch, but they didn't have the resources like the USN to put into a fully developed MAG fleet layout. The Royal Navy is just getting out of its recovery phase, and has settled with the MAG doctrine- hence the 2 new QE Carriers. However, you may be thinking that why are we so far inferior still to navies like the Brazilians, Pakistanis and Indian Navies (no offence to anyone intended, but we are one of the original naval powers that pride ourselves over it considering our lack of armed forces in general). This is because they have had the last 60 odd years to choose either the BG or MAG doctrine (or somewhere in between- but that's another matter) and improve their navy whereas we have spent 60 years refocussing our navy, on a very limited budget (for many years after WW2) and playing catch up.
If anyone wants to know more or ask questions, please feel free to send me an eve mail. I'm not an expert and don't want to intimidate anyone, and please if Ive got it completely wrong don't hesitate to correct me :)
R. Farelle
|
Viktor Fyretracker
Caldari Fyretracker Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2010.07.12 05:23:00 -
[80]
The USS Enterprise is a pretty damn old ship lets not forget.
but i think there is a design on the drawingboards to replace it. i know there is a campaign to make sure the replacement is also named Enterprise.
|
|
Rayce Farelle
|
Posted - 2010.07.14 19:25:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker The USS Enterprise is a pretty damn old ship lets not forget.
but i think there is a design on the drawingboards to replace it. i know there is a campaign to make sure the replacement is also named Enterprise.
Launched in 1960 and due to be decommisioned in 2013 so it's not that old to be honest. That sort of lifespan is the normal expected lifespan of a Nuclear powered Aircraft Carrier. There is always the option to extend the life of the Enterprise by extracting the reactors, and replacing them with diesel turbines, and then selling it off to countries that have a use for a flagship carrier.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |