Like Vezzini might not say, "Never engage in a land war in Asia. But only second less well-known is not locking intellectual horns with a Sicilian!!"
Shore bombardment is useless when you're attacking landlocked or mostly landlocked nations such as Iraq or Afghanistan.
Visit First Cultural Industries
There are reasons why I believe mankind should live in cities and let nature reclaim all the villages with the exception of a few we keep on display as horrific reminders of rural life.-Starchild
Meat eating and the dominance and force projected over animals that is acompanies it is a gateway or parallel to other prejudiced beliefs such as classism, misogyny, and even racism. -General Ludd
Like Vezzini might not say, "Never engage in a land war in Asia. But only second less well-known is not locking intellectual horns with a Sicilian!!"
DISCLAIMER: The writer of this post is completely ignorant of real science. Flame gently, good readers.
Rail guns have that much recoil? Nuts. How about directed electromagnetic pulse weapons? Do we have those, or can we have them anytime soon? I'd like to be able to zap speeders on the highway with one of those things. It'd be like instantaneous sugar in the gas tank from thirty feet away. God only knows what it would do to planes.
Or plasma. How long until we can shoot bolts of electrically charged gas at things we don't like? It would be an impractical and short-ranged weapon, but it would be fun, and that's what counts as far as I'm concerned, because I've been playing too much Mail Order Monsters.
Speaking of which, how about gravity guns? I bet spatial distortion really screws things up.
Yeah, I need booze. Just one more year...
1011 1100
They don't exist outside of small versions in the lab. However, we do have microwave projectors powerful enough to fry computer chips and such from about 30 meters or so. That would be enough to disable any modern car. They take a lot of power so you would need to have a trunk full of capacitors and steadily bleed power from the alternator/generator system in the car. This might make your batteries wear out faster. As for gravity, we have no way to manipulate it other than to gather and move around objects with lots of mass.
Last edited by pchang; August 30, 2003 at 17:22.
That's not the real world. Your job has little to do with the sort of thing most people do for a living. - Agathon
If social security were private, it would be prosecuted as a Ponzi scheme.
We should bring back the battleships. Massive lump of steel, with some enormous 18 inch guns or something.
Come on! They look so cool!!
A few anti-aircraft guns with decent radar are you suddenly got a viable military solution for bombarding the coastal towns North-East England!
"I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
"You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:
Have a Guiness. Irish doctors prescribe one pint a day for good health.
NyQuil is good if you have a cold. And there's always Robitussin.
Moe.
I think that there is a reason that the US keeps bringing the battleships back. They are excellent platforms for just about any weapon system you could imagine. The real asset in them is that armour plating. Most anti-ship missles would leave little more than a black spot on them. I have seen some ideas put forth about removing the aft turrent and installing a Harrier Hanger and Aegis technology on the superstructure. As close support for a shore landing it would be an unbeatable force. IIRC it is the propulsion systems that keep them fro being reconfigured. When the cost for that is figured in with the other upgrades, then it becomes much more cost effective to build several new ships that can have multiple tasks, such as the ship being discussed in this thread.Originally posted by elijah
We should bring back the battleships. Massive lump of steel, with some enormous 18 inch guns or something.
Come on! They look so cool!!
A few anti-aircraft guns with decent radar are you suddenly got a viable military solution for bombarding the coastal towns North-East England!
"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003
we could have tugs tow the battleships! u think I"m joking too! but I aint.Originally posted by PLATO
I think that there is a reason that the US keeps bringing the battleships back. They are excellent platforms for just about any weapon system you could imagine. The real asset in them is that armour plating. Most anti-ship missles would leave little more than a black spot on them. I have seen some ideas put forth about removing the aft turrent and installing a Harrier Hanger and Aegis technology on the superstructure. As close support for a shore landing it would be an unbeatable force. IIRC it is the propulsion systems that keep them fro being reconfigured. When the cost for that is figured in with the other upgrades, then it becomes much more cost effective to build several new ships that can have multiple tasks, such as the ship being discussed in this thread.
PLATO: Consider that the last operation US battleship (the Missouri?) was decommissioned after the first Gulf War, after being built in WWII.
60 years of tech have passed. Imagine the holy sweet mother of god we can unleash upon those pesky Japanese.
We would need to build big I think, perhaps upwards of 60'000 tons. Attention would need to be paid to what killed off the old battleships, namely air power. As such, some killer AA systems, including perhaps some method of defeating stealth. Either some kind of magnetic or trans-EM system, or maybe conventional radar that would shoot down any seagull travelling at over 180mph.
Besides, the overriding reason... they look so damn good!
"I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
"You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:
Yavoon: Or just a hell of a large engine! One that would make a car park full of lambos sound like a dying cat.
I'm fantasising now, but can you blame me?
"I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
"You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:
battleships are cool, and very useful. 18 inch normal artillery fired 20 miles inland is hellish to deal w/. its cheaper than f 22 and then we can use the term gunship diplomacy again.Originally posted by elijah
Yavoon: Or just a hell of a large engine! One that would make a car park full of lambos sound like a dying cat.
I'm fantasising now, but can you blame me?
18 inchers will fire probably above 30 miles. As PLATO said, you can fire loads of stuff from them, possible cruise missiles and ballastic missiles!!battleships are cool, and very useful. 18 inch normal artillery fired 20 miles inland is hellish to deal w/. its cheaper than f 22 and then we can use the term gunship diplomacy again..
Gunboat diplomacy... I think it works best in the Royal Navy.
The beauty of pacifism is that it doesn't mean you can't see the glory of combat!
"I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
"You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:
More to the point...those pesky N. Koreans!Originally posted by elijah
PLATO: Consider that the last operation US battleship (the Missouri?) was decommissioned after the first Gulf War, after being built in WWII.
60 years of tech have passed. Imagine the holy sweet mother of god we can unleash upon those pesky Japanese.
We would need to build big I think, perhaps upwards of 60'000 tons. Attention would need to be paid to what killed off the old battleships, namely air power. As such, some killer AA systems, including perhaps some method of defeating stealth. Either some kind of magnetic or trans-EM system, or maybe conventional radar that would shoot down any seagull travelling at over 180mph.
Besides, the overriding reason... they look so damn good!
I am very anxious to see the size of the Crusier that is briefly being mentioned in the article, although I doubt that it would approach anywhere near 60,000 tons. It is probably a good thing that point defense systems handle misles better than armour at a fraction of the cost, The Battleships were beautiful!!
"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003
I don't suppose anyone has seen "Spaceship Yamato"
At least that's what I think it was called.
That's not the real world. Your job has little to do with the sort of thing most people do for a living. - Agathon
If social security were private, it would be prosecuted as a Ponzi scheme.
Indeed, though I think the WWI battlecruisers were more gorgeous. Same firepower, sleeker, less armour. They just looked stunning. HMS Hood!!The Battleships were beautiful!!
Damn Bismark...
"I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
"You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:
I'd never go out with a guy who had a boat called "Myott."
Or, you could build a carrier and have its planes provide close air support...Originally posted by elijah
PLATO: Consider that the last operation US battleship (the Missouri?) was decommissioned after the first Gulf War, after being built in WWII.
60 years of tech have passed. Imagine the holy sweet mother of god we can unleash upon those pesky Japanese.
We would need to build big I think, perhaps upwards of 60'000 tons. Attention would need to be paid to what killed off the old battleships, namely air power. As such, some killer AA systems, including perhaps some method of defeating stealth. Either some kind of magnetic or trans-EM system, or maybe conventional radar that would shoot down any seagull travelling at over 180mph.
Besides, the overriding reason... they look so damn good!
a floating 18 inch gun platform is cheaper than a carrier full of f18's.Originally posted by skywalker
Or, you could build a carrier and have its planes provide close air support...
Yeah, but what kinda range does it have? 20, 30 miles? A carrier can attack anything within over a thousand kilometers.
yes, thats what u get when u cough up the money for a carrier. only the US has a real sized carrier. France's is smaller and britain has pseudo carriers.Originally posted by skywalker
Yeah, but what kinda range does it have? 20, 30 miles? A carrier can attack anything within over a thousand kilometers.
So, while carriers cost more, they can deliver more power further. Plus they have an inherent defense against air attacks.
Obviously, the carrier group is the most versatile, powerful way to project force.
For those of you who thought James Bond movies were full of fake - here is something that isn't: the stealth ship displayed in full detail. The Bond movie was a futuristic fantasy, but this is for real. Sweden has it, and US will probably get it.
So get your Naomi Klein books and move it or I'll seriously bash your faces in! - Supercitizen to stupid students
Be kind to the nerdiest guy in school. He will be your boss when you've grown up!
I saw a bunch of ships on my vacation to San Diego, and that really resembles the Arleigh Burke class ships I saw. It's the stealth shape.
AND it's got camo. I CAN'T EVEN SEE IT!!!!
its not an either or question though. I wouldn't say "**** carriers lets build only battleships." tho u seem to be blind enuff to think that.Originally posted by skywalker
So, while carriers cost more, they can deliver more power further. Plus they have an inherent defense against air attacks.
Obviously, the carrier group is the most versatile, powerful way to project force.
I am saying that battleships or probably more accurately, large floating artillery is useful. can be used for devastating effect. and should be around as part of the US arsenal.
this forum antagonizes ppl so quickly. like omg. jump off my **** plz.
I think "large floating artillery" would be redundant with a carrier.
You don't have any ****.
If u mean it is a different way of achieving a similar result(blow crap up) then OMG UR RIGHT. lets not overlook that redundancy is ingrown into the millitary as much as bad haircuts.Originally posted by skywalker
I think "large floating artillery" would be redundant with a carrier.
the idea of implementing the correct measure to the correct situation implies the need of redundancy unless u have an infinitely malleable tool. and the carrier is not that.
Actually, if these ships could:
A. Fire shells with tremendous accuracy from hundreds of miles away, and
B. Remain hidden due to stealth plating,
Couldn't this be something of a practical rebirth of privateering?
After all, if they can't find a ship within hundreds of miles, when a ship goes boom and sinks, you have no way of proving that it wasn't sabotage by internal terrorist factions and blahblahblah. Well, maybe with a salvage operation. It would probably still have some applications though.
1011 1100
You can make a decent pipe bomb by scraping the celluloid off the backs of playing cards, placing it inside a closed cylinder, and using a lit cigarette as the fuse.
Orange juice concentrate and gasoline don't make napalm.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks