Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Commissar Kate
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
225
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 17:42:00 -
[31] - Quote
WTB Iowa class battleship with railguns and lasers. Set Lasers for Fun!!! |
Eli Green
The Arrow Project
604
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 17:51:00 -
[32] - Quote
patiently waits for plasma cannons to be invented. wumbo |
baltec1
Bat Country
5920
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 18:14:00 -
[33] - Quote
Eli Green wrote:patiently waits for plasma cannons to be invented.
One was built in the 70s. |
Eli Green
The Arrow Project
605
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 18:46:00 -
[34] - Quote
close enough wumbo |
Micheal Dietrich
Kings Gambit Black
1488
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 18:48:00 -
[35] - Quote
What is everyone's obsession with bringing back Battleships? While they were King in WW1, WW2 proved that air superiority was the way. As the old saying goes, it is always better to take the high ground.
Furthermore, while railguns may be impressive with their mach 5 trajectories and powder-less rounds, They are still severely limited in what they can accomplish compared to a missile.
Finally, on top of all that they are slow, large, lumbering, expensive targets. Here we have another thread talking about cutting costs in the military budget and yet on in the same note we want to recreate these gigantic money pits that can be outperformed and outmaneuvered by ships a quarter of their size.
Wars evolve and tactics change. Battleships had their time. Out of Pod is getting In the Pod - Join in game channel IG OOPE |
Eli Green
The Arrow Project
605
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 18:50:00 -
[36] - Quote
Micheal Dietrich wrote:What is everyone's obsession with bringing back Battleships? While they were King in WW1, WW2 proved that air superiority was the way. As the old saying goes, it is always better to take the high ground.
Furthermore, while railguns may be impressive with their mach 5 trajectories and powder-less rounds, They are still severely limited in what they can accomplish compared to a missile.
Finally, on top of all that they are slow, large, lumbering, expensive targets. Here we have another thread talking about cutting costs in the military budget and yet on in the same note we want to recreate these gigantic money pits that can be outperformed and outmaneuvered by ships a quarter of their size.
Wars evolve and tactics change. Battleships had their time.
Your right, now where's my orbital cannon wumbo |
Commissar Kate
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
235
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 19:00:00 -
[37] - Quote
Micheal Dietrich wrote:What is everyone's obsession with bringing back Battleships? While they were King in WW1, WW2 proved that air superiority was the way. As the old saying goes, it is always better to take the high ground.
Furthermore, while railguns may be impressive with their mach 5 trajectories and powder-less rounds, They are still severely limited in what they can accomplish compared to a missile.
Finally, on top of all that they are slow, large, lumbering, expensive targets. Here we have another thread talking about cutting costs in the military budget and yet on in the same note we want to recreate these gigantic money pits that can be outperformed and outmaneuvered by ships a quarter of their size.
Wars evolve and tactics change. Battleships had their time.
I'm fully aware that battleships were outclassed by carriers/air warfare a long time ago, I guess is just nostalgia about the battleships.
Submarines are still relevant and effective, no need of a battleship anymore when you have SSGN setting off the coast with 100+ cruise missiles ready to go or even just a fast attack boat with dozen or so cruise missiles, plus you can factor in the stealth of a sub. Set Lasers for Fun!!! |
Eurydia Vespasian
Nova Insula Mining and Industrial
2156
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 19:27:00 -
[38] - Quote
i think we should bring back the phalanx as the standard infantry battle formation. it would destroy all. |
Concurssi Mellenar
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 19:33:00 -
[39] - Quote
Guns are overrated. We should bring back short swords since they're obviously the most lethal weapon this side of the EVE gate. |
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
1288
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 20:19:00 -
[40] - Quote
Micheal Dietrich wrote: Wars evolve and tactics change. Battleships had their time.
This squid says: You are correct, Sir!
But they're big and impressive. Which impresses people who don't study the details. Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.
Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc |
|
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Tribal Band
618
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 00:34:00 -
[41] - Quote
It's not much of a system yet.
The drone was moving so slowly it was almost falling out of the sky. If they want to shoot planes &/or missiles out the sky it's got to track much faster.
Nice concept though. |
Alara IonStorm
4880
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 02:46:00 -
[42] - Quote
Micheal Dietrich wrote:What is everyone's obsession with bringing back Battleships? While they were King in WW1, WW2 proved that air superiority was the way. As the old saying goes, it is always better to take the high ground. What people often forget is complexities of Battleships in WW2.
1. Most were old WW1 Surplus. Imagine if most of the tanks and planes in WW2 were WW1 surplus, technology evolved. Most carriers were newly built, most of the old ones were relegated to training. 2. The eight WW1 era Battleships at Pearl Harbor of which only 2 were sunk permanently and were used later during the war had other problems besides Aircraft. They lacked proper AA defenses, modern armor and were to slow to keep up with the fleet. Also port security was bad, they had skeleton crews at the time and not up to operation, nor were they following war time security. 3. Modern Battleships did sink a lot of ships including Aircraft Carriers. They also provided deterrents preventing fast ships like Destroyers and Cruisers from rushing Carriers. Commanders had to constantly plan around them. 4. They were improperly used in a lot of cases. Japan hoarded their until the end of the war when they didn't have the support or fuel. The Kongo class considered a low priority was used heavily and successful while the Yamoto's were outnumbered 20-1 when they were finally used and sunk on a terribly planned suicide mission. The Germans never had a fleet capable of supporting them, they preformed well early but heavily outnumbered they were locked up in ports where half of them were sunk. The death of the Italian / German surface fleet and the 100% U-Boat strategy obsoleted British Battleships. 5. Battleships were invaluable as Bombardment. There was a Red Zone at D-Day that the Germans retreated to because it was outside the range of Allied Guns, hundreds of tanks and artillery positions were destroyed by Battleships and the Germans could not force the Allies off the shore because of them. Their role in the Pacific was just as valuable. 6. Many commanders in the US and Briton put their flags on Battleship because they were so hard to sink in Naval Warfare.
Micheal Dietrich wrote: Furthermore, while railguns may be impressive with their mach 5 trajectories and powder-less rounds, They are still severely limited in what they can accomplish compared to a missile.
Missiles and Planes are just as limited. They are harder to shoot down then a missile or plane being a solid round. When providing ground support they don't need to be refueled after every sortie and the rounds don't cost 1 million dollars to fire and take up space so their are limited numbers. That means that commanders can launch more in support of soldiers on the ground.
More then that they can be equipped with Anti Air and Sea Missiles themselves and are much harder to sink. If the Fawklands War taught us anything Missiles don't always get through or score a hit. While Missiles are impressive believe it or not they would have serious trouble sinking a WW2 era Battleship. It would take dozens and dozens, the Battleship guns while limited by range carried more destructive force, an Armor Piercing Shell from the Iowa weighed 2700 Pounds, a Harpoon caries a 480 pound charge. The Bismarck took 400 shells before going down.
With the range of Rail Guns that gets a whole lot better.
Micheal Dietrich wrote: Finally, on top of all that they are slow, large, lumbering, expensive targets. Here we have another thread talking about cutting costs in the military budget and yet on in the same note we want to recreate these gigantic money pits that can be outperformed and outmaneuvered by ships a quarter of their size.
They were not slow at all. The Iowa moves 31 Knots, Bismarck 30, Kongo 29 knots and today the average for vessels is about 30 knots.
Finally the number one thing that made Battleships so expensive was their Armor. They were not much bigger then Freighters at the time. Their impressive tonnage was all steel. Today their defenses would be less physical and more laser defense and CIWS, cutting the cost.
So a 250m long 25000 Ton ship (1/4th the tonnage of a Nimitz) harboring 6 / 10-16" Railguns, SAM Missiles, Anti Ship Missiles defended by a dozen Anti-missile systems would be a fierce force on the seas. Able to provide ground support not for a million dollar Tomahawk or 15minutes later from a jet that costs 200k Dollars to launch but from a nice cheap projectile 100km away.
While they may still not be the center of the fleet they do have a place in it now that technology is catching up to them. |
Umega
Solis Mensa
149
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 03:56:00 -
[43] - Quote
How I view it is this...
It's the States showcasing that... "Yeah, we get it...lot of other nations (China) catching up to our air superiority and missile capablities. So.. while you guys were busy catching up, we developed and are trying to master the perfect counter to aircraft/missiles. Suck it..." signed - US Navy is still better than the rest of the world's naval fleets combined.
If I was anti-American in say China (ally sorta I know), N Korea, Iran.. whatever. I'd be quite relectant to throw my new carrier fleets, thinking they are the superior fighting force of the time, at the US when they fielding railgun Battleships that are going to drop carriers from many, many.. many miles out with an unstoppable and accurate shell. Launch missiles and aircraft at the BS.. only to get chewed to pieces by the frigates and destroyers sporting laser cannons protecting the Battleship.
Counter with subs? I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the US secretly had the best stealth subs above anyone else already. Laser guns you brag and talk about.. chest-beat about. Nearly invisible subs.. don't say a damn word. *casually waves hand in front of face* 'Those aren't military.. those are USOs, aliens...' says the man holding a blue book. -áUme-Pro Studios |
Graygor
1kB Realty 1kB Galactic
20950
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 04:12:00 -
[44] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote: Here be win in extra winsauce
Alara I hope that becomes a reality. A railgun toting BS would make me so happy. They could name the hull the Megathron or the Hyperion and I'd have a grin on my face all day long.
Although I secretly suspect the USS Rokh to be more applicable. "I think you should buy a new Mayan calendar. Mine has muscle cars on it." --áKenneth O'Hara
"Something I don't say very often: The welshman is right." - Marcus Gord |
Micheal Dietrich
Kings Gambit Black
1503
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 04:13:00 -
[45] - Quote
Battleships in WW2 didn't face off against uranium armor piercing rounds or Bunker busters.
The difference between a plane and a battleship is that the plane can go further inland after the troops have landed.
And the part of not refueling is not entirely true. You aren't taking into account the logistics needed to take care of the 1000+ crew that you have on board. An average cost to run one of our carriers is roughly 8.5 billion a year and they usually have a separate supply ship in tow along with the small fleet guarding them.
And again I'll reiterate on the change in warfare and tactics. I ask you, when is the last time we saw a D-day style landing? WW2 was about large numbers and large cannons, but today's wars are small, urban, and precise. Battleships have no place there unless you plan on taking out 3 city blocks.
I'll say again, its overkill, wasteful, and not needed when we have 20 other ships that can and do fill its roles. Out of Pod is getting In the Pod - Join in game channel IG OOPE |
Marie Hartinez
Aries Munitions and Defense
340
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 04:36:00 -
[46] - Quote
silens vesica wrote:BTW:
April 10, 1963: USS Thresher (SSN 593), on eternal patrol with 129 souls aboard.
While I was station in Papa Hotel, I attended a funeral memorial for all subs lost at sea, at an outside chapel on base. Now, that was one of the most emotional experiences I've had next to the Arizona Memorial and the funerals I've attended for family. Surrender is still your slightly less painful option. |
Alara IonStorm
4883
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 04:44:00 -
[47] - Quote
Micheal Dietrich wrote:Battleships in WW2 didn't face off against uranium armor piercing rounds or Bunker busters. Same vulnerability's every ship faces. Laser Defense, SAM's and CIWS can replace heavy Armor and lessen the cost considerably.
Micheal Dietrich wrote: The difference between a plane and a battleship is that the plane can go further inland after the troops have landed.
It also has the risk of being shot down and can only deliver one attack per sortie. A Large Rail Guns range also means they can go pretty far inland. They are also reliable against ships with missile and air defense.
Micheal Dietrich wrote:And the part of not refueling is not entirely true. You aren't taking into account the logistics needed to take care of the 1000+ crew that you have on board. An average cost to run one of our carriers is roughly 8.5 billion a year and they usually have a separate supply ship in tow along with the small fleet guarding them. Refueling planes and re-arming planes is what I was discussing not the ship. A Railgun can launch attacks cheaper then a Missile or Guided Bomb and they can do with much more supply and a higher rate of fire while having less worry about interception.
Micheal Dietrich wrote: And again I'll reiterate on the change in warfare and tactics. I ask you, when is the last time we saw a D-day style landing? WW2 was about large numbers and large cannons, but today's wars are small, urban, and precise. Battleships have no place there unless you plan on taking out 3 city blocks.
Wars today and wars tomorrow are entirely different things and rail guns are precise and long range as well.
Micheal Dietrich wrote: I'll say again, its overkill, wasteful, and not needed when we have 20 other ships that can and do fill its roles.
Speaking of overkill a single Suppercarrier is 100000 tons and their are ten of them. Yet four 25000 ton Rail ships could be built for the cost of one 100000 Ton Supercarrier and crewed by less then forth the people. It does not require a billion dollars in aircraft, more in pilot training, refueling and maintenance of craft. It provides a different sort of attack Carriers can not and a more varied fleet is always a good thing.
It is a viable addition to a fleet that doesn't break the bank. The US Fleet is 3.4 million tons. Adding 100k extra for an entirely new warship that could change the course of naval warfare is a steal at twice the price. It all depends on the viability of a rail gun both on land and sea.
I don't accept your 100% con argument when research and development will tell use the future, laser defense and railguns are entirely new weapons systems. Their viability is unproven and should not be discounted. |
Angelique Duchemin
Serenity Prime Kraken.
416
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 05:57:00 -
[48] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote: 1. Most were old WW1 Surplus. Imagine if most of the tanks and planes in WW2 were WW1 surplus, technology evolved. Most carriers were newly built, most of the old ones were relegated to training. *snipped to safe post space* 6. Many commanders in the US and Briton put their flags on Battleship because they were so hard to sink in Naval Warfare.
No one needs a battleship when a Cruiser can fire missiles with much more fire power, precision and 25 times the range of the most modern battleship shells.
Alara IonStorm wrote: Missiles and Planes are just as limited. A steel shell is harder to shoot down then a missile or plane being a solid round not reliant on propellant. When providing ground support they don't need to be refueled after every sortie and the rounds don't cost 1 million dollars to fire and take up space so their are limited numbers. That means that commanders can launch more in support of soldiers on the ground.
More then that Battleships can also be equipped with Anti Air and Sea Missiles themselves and are much harder to sink. If the Fawklands War taught us anything Missiles don't always get through or score a hit. While Missiles are impressive believe it or not they would have serious trouble sinking a WW2 era Battleship. It would take dozens and dozens, the Battleship guns while limited by range carried more destructive force, an Armor Piercing Shell from the Iowa weighed 2700 Pounds, a Harpoon caries a 480 pound charge. The Bismarck took 400 shells before going down.
The only reason The Bismarck took so many shells to sink was that before it was engage by the navy a Plane had disabled its rudder. The enemy ships could therefore close on it quickly. The enemy ships would then fire their shells at it in a straight line rather than arced from above. This meant that the shells were going right through the surface parts of of the ship and no breaches where made below sea level to let it sink. The Bismarck was sunk by the German crew with explosives to get the enemy to stop shooting.
And the Bismarck's ability to fight was disabled long before it was sunk.
In comparison the HMS Hood. The British flagship was sunk in one lucky shot.
Yes missiles are expensive but ships are even more so and by the time a battleship gets within range of the enemy. The battleship itself has already been within enemy missile range for about 2700 km. Although getting a hit through the armour belt is a lot of work. All the enemy has to do is take out the turrets and the battleship is a floating brick.
Alara IonStorm wrote: With the range of Rail Guns that gets a whole lot better. I bet they can even make the shells guided.
Without it's own propulsion it won't matter. The ranges ships fight on these days means you can't fire a shot in a straight line to the enemy ship.
Alara IonStorm wrote:Finally the number one thing that made Battleships so expensive was their Armor. They were not much bigger then Freighters at the time. Their impressive tonnage was all steel plating. Today their defenses would be less physical and more laser defense and CIWS, cutting the cost. So a 250m long 25000 Ton ship (1/4th the tonnage of a Nimitz) harboring 6 / 10-16" Railguns, SAM Missiles, Anti Ship Missiles defended by a dozen Anti-missile systems would be a fierce force on the seas. Able to provide ground support not for a million dollar Tomahawk or 15minutes later from a jet that costs 200k Dollars to launch but from a nice cheap projectile 100km away, and sea support without the weakness of missiles being jammed or shot. While they may still not be the center of the fleet they do have a place in it now that technology is catching up to them. A light weight, modern, defended, rail platform should be considered an option. They could build for of them instead of the next 100000 Ton Supercarrier.
There are thousands of experienced Engineers and Scientists providing information that lead to the decision to abandon battleships. Believe it or not but you on the internet do not have the one-up on them all with your rail gun theories.
And Aircraft Carriers have actually been getting smaller over the years while their capacity for Aircraft has become larger. We miss you Saede. |
Alara IonStorm
4883
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 06:09:00 -
[49] - Quote
Angelique Duchemin wrote: No one needs a battleship when a Cruiser can fire missiles with much more fire power, precision and 25 times the range of the most modern battleship shells.
We are talking Rail Guns not shells which the "Prototype" is tested to a range of 370km vs 120km for Harpoon Missiles with not as many of the anti missile vulnerabilities.
Angelique Duchemin wrote: Yes missiles are expensive but ships are even more so and by the time a battleship gets within range of the enemy. The battleship itself has already been within enemy missile range for about 2700 km. Although getting a hit through the armour belt is a lot of work. All the enemy has to do is take out the turrets and the battleship is a floating brick.
370km on the prototype and SAMs and CISW's have improved since WW2 with Lasers coming out. Most Anti Ship Missiles have a shorter range then Rail guns under development, cost a lot more to fire and are vulnerable to Anti Missile weapons. Stop trying to equate ancient Battleships to a modern one, it is like comparing a P-51 Mustang to an F-18.
Angelique Duchemin wrote: Without it's own propulsion it won't matter. The ranges ships fight on these days means you can't fire a shot in a straight line to the enemy ship.
Thank god we discovered the Arc.
Angelique Duchemin wrote: There are thousands of experienced Engineers and Scientists providing information that lead to the decision to abandon battleships. Believe it or not but you on the internet do not have the one-up on them all with your rail gun theories.
Le sigh that is just.. wow.
Rail Guns are entirely new and those engineers and scientist who abandoned the Battleship did so when Battleships had a range of 22km. Things are changing.
Angelique Duchemin wrote: And Aircraft Carriers have actually been getting smaller over the years while their capacity for Aircraft has become larger.
No they haven't. The biggest Aircraft Carrier in the World is the Nimitz, the new Supercarriers that are coming out are also 100000 Tons.
Fact is the Viability of Rail Guns is still up in the Air and with it the Viability of Gun toting Warships. Rail Guns may be the future of Naval Warfare with all the Missile and Aircraft Defense technology. |
Graygor
1kB Realty 1kB Galactic
20951
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 06:40:00 -
[50] - Quote
Now, now, dont fight. There's one way to settle this. Just go to Iran and ask to use their Time Machine. "I think you should buy a new Mayan calendar. Mine has muscle cars on it." --áKenneth O'Hara
"Something I don't say very often: The welshman is right." - Marcus Gord |
|
jason hill
The Riot Formation Unclaimed.
235
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 13:17:00 -
[51] - Quote
rofl ...having just read that article ..i really just dont know wether to laugh or cry .... |
Micheal Dietrich
Kings Gambit Black
1521
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 13:41:00 -
[52] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:This currently active Missile Battlecruiser is about the size and tonnage of what I would expect of a modern Battleship, not much heavier than a Zumwalt. Imagine that but with 6 Railguns lined with Lasers, Sam's, CISW's and anti-ship missiles for backup.
That's what I am imagining, a cruiser with rails. I can't remember which one of them is getting the rail but its only getting the one on the bow. Out of Pod is getting In the Pod - Join in game channel IG OOPE |
Commissar Kate
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
371
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 13:49:00 -
[53] - Quote
Micheal Dietrich wrote:Alara IonStorm wrote:This currently active Missile Battlecruiser is about the size and tonnage of what I would expect of a modern Battleship, not much heavier than a Zumwalt. Imagine that but with 6 Railguns lined with Lasers, Sam's, CISW's and anti-ship missiles for backup. That's what I am imagining, a cruiser with rails. I can't remember which one of them is getting the rail but its only getting the one on the bow.
Zumwalt destroys are being built with railguns in mind for the future, they are giving them some pretty powerful gas turbines for all the extra electricity thats needed now days.
And I'll add that the Zumwalt is ugly as hell. Set Lasers for Fun!!! |
Alara IonStorm
4884
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 13:55:00 -
[54] - Quote
Micheal Dietrich wrote: That's what I am imagining, a cruiser with rails. I can't remember which one of them is getting the rail but its only getting the one on the bow.
That would be the Zumwalt class I believe which is a Destroyer. Or it might be the Ticonderoga class Cruiser.
Odd thing about the new Zumwalt and the Ticon's, the Zumwalt is 6000 tons heavier and has 2 larger guns but is classified as a Destroyer... Odd.
BTW I found something old, it is a 1990's Battleship class that was planned to be introduced to replace the Iowa's in the ground pounder role. 6 were going to be manufactured carrying 500+ Tomahawk Missiles with a 200+ meter length. It really looks cool. They shelved it in favor of modifying Ohio class subs that carry 150+ Tomahawks. That was done but considered not good enough which is why the Zumwalt has 2, 6" guns.
The Iowa's are technically still in reserve and have to be kept in ready condition.
Quote:1. Iowa and Wisconsin must not be altered in any way that would impair their military utility; 2. The battleships must be preserved in their present condition through the continued use of cathodic protection, dehumidification systems, and any other preservation methods as needed; 3. Spare parts and unique equipment such as the 16-inch (410 mm) gun barrels and projectiles be preserved in adequate numbers to support Iowa and Wisconsin, if reactivated; 4. The navy must prepare plans for the rapid reactivation of Iowa and Wisconsin should they be returned to the navy in the event of a national emergency
An interesting read. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |