Announcement

**:) Smiley** · August 30, 2003, 03:47

Shore bombardment is useless when you're attacking landlocked or mostly landlocked nations such as Iraq or Afghanistan.

**st_swithin** · August 30, 2003, 03:49

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!!"

**Elok** · August 30, 2003, 09:15

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...

**pchang** · August 30, 2003, 17:06

EM Pulse Weapons

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.

**Whaleboy** · August 30, 2003, 20:05

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!

**st_swithin** · August 30, 2003, 20:07

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.

**PLATO** · August 30, 2003, 20:30

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 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.

**yavoon** · August 30, 2003, 20:39

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.

we could have tugs tow the battleships! u think I"m joking too! but I aint.

**Whaleboy** · August 30, 2003, 20:43

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!

**Whaleboy** · August 30, 2003, 20:45

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?

**yavoon** · August 30, 2003, 20:47

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?

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.

**Whaleboy** · August 30, 2003, 20:50

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.

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!!

.

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!

**PLATO** · August 30, 2003, 20:56

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!

More to the point...those pesky N. Koreans!

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!!

**pchang** · August 30, 2003, 20:59

Anime

I don't suppose anyone has seen "Spaceship Yamato"
At least that's what I think it was called.

**Whaleboy** · August 30, 2003, 21:05

The Battleships were beautiful!!

Indeed, though I think the WWI battlecruisers were more gorgeous. Same firepower, sleeker, less armour. They just looked stunning. HMS Hood!!

Damn Bismark...

Announcement

The Future of Naval Warships

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment