Battleship Porn

Discussion in 'Off-topic Zone' started by Jebe, Aug 18, 2009.

  1. Dundradal

    Dundradal Frog Blast the Vent Core!

    Messages:
    6,479
    Likes Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    51,985
    Location:
    Washington, D.C.
    No. I'm just north of Boston.

    I might look into the Sara...
     
  2. frostytheplebe

    frostytheplebe Seventh Part of the Seal

    Messages:
    2,120
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    26,885
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Framingham, Mass
    Definitely be worth it. But its depressing seeing the shape she is in. My Bad, I always thought you were around Prov area... dunno why. Oh well.
     
  3. ELTEE

    ELTEE Rear Admiral

    Messages:
    1,024
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    22,385
    Location:
    Nanuet, NY
    This is right - but also wrong!

    Though the battleships are 'officially' removed from service, their new 'owners' are required to maintain them to a level where they can be recalled to active duty at a moments notice by Congress. So, fear not "Iowa whores" - though unlikely, we may indeed here more from those 16 inchers at some point in the future!

    It is telling that these are the only vessels that for which such a requirement has been forced upon the new handlers.

    Tigerhawk, interesting analogy about Vietnam. The F-4 had crossed my mind as well. Guns, I think, will always have a place in combat.

    On the carriers, the new RAM point defense weapons are certainly impressive - but what happens when the magazine is empty? They're great for downing a few incoming missiles, but what if you're being saturated? I'd take the back-up of the older CWIS any day. I think on some of the older Nimitz carriers, they're letting the two systems co-exist - seems like that's the smart call and should be the norm...
     
  4. Mancubus

    Mancubus Rear Admiral

    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    24,035
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warsaw, Poland
    Heh. How about a new nuclear-powered battleship class?
     
  5. frostytheplebe

    frostytheplebe Seventh Part of the Seal

    Messages:
    2,120
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    26,885
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Framingham, Mass
    I dunno... I mean would we really need it? You know I overheard that the military actually thought about putting nuclear warheads on those 16inch shells.
     
  6. Mancubus

    Mancubus Rear Admiral

    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    24,035
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warsaw, Poland
    Well it's the case of civilian thinking on my side. I mean if a megawatt produced by Nuclear power plant is cheper than a megawatt produced in oil heated power plant than a sea mile done by the nuclear powered battleship should be chaeper than... you know where I'm going, right? And BB's are sure large and expensive enough on ther own to try and put a reactor in.
     
  7. ELTEE

    ELTEE Rear Admiral

    Messages:
    1,024
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    22,385
    Location:
    Nanuet, NY
    This thread really is porn. I love it.

    I actually tend to agree - we're already in the realm of rediculousness, so I would say that to really bring the BBs back for a future conflict your best bet would be to go for nuclear power. It would just be so much cooler...

    ...and stranger! What would that do to the cross section silhouette? We've never seen a BB with no stacks before. It might be kind of like wine with screw tops or dubs on a muscle car. Just odd.

    I'd be willing to bet that if we ever got to the point where we were seriously contemplating the idea of returning an Iowa to service, there would be another extensive refit, etc. Maybe a powerplant swap isn't inconceivable.

    Heh, yeah... we kind of went through a phase. So did the Russians and the Chinese. There was a time when nuclear tipped artillery shells were cool. About the same time polyester leisure suits were in! :D

    (I've heard the Chinese still maintain their arsenal of tac nukes, to include the aforementioned disco shells.)
     
  8. Quarto

    Quarto Unknown Enemy

    Messages:
    11,849
    Likes Received:
    260
    Trophy Points:
    69,385
    Location:
    Poland
    I'm afraid we have a fairly good idea how a new battleship would look - just plain awful. Have you seen all those new corvettes and destroyers people have been designing the last few years? Terrible - I know the angularity is there for a reason, but it does look horrid.
     
  9. frostytheplebe

    frostytheplebe Seventh Part of the Seal

    Messages:
    2,120
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    26,885
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Framingham, Mass
    Plus I don't think they'd have the heavy inch guns everyone seems to be hoping for. Most likely they'd be equipped with Rail guns or something along those lines.
     
  10. Death

    Death gh0d (Administrator)

    Messages:
    2,331
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    36,985
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Taylors, SC, USA
    Even as something of a battleship fan, the odds of them once again being part of the fleet are rather on the low side.

    With a Nimitz-class carrier, you get anti-submarine, anti-air, anti-ship, and ground attack capability, all of the above out to several hundred of miles.

    With an Iowa-class BB, you get anti-ship, anti-air, and ground attack capability, all of the above within 25m or so (IIRC) capability, save for the Tomahawk system (which doesn't match what the 16" cannons can do, in terms of raw damage).

    Don't forget that the Iowa equipment is, for the most part, quite antiquated, with more than a few systems for which no one is actually trained to operate (the "old salts" being... well, old, as in "past retirement age" old, for the most part). There were upgrades to the fire control systems to accommodate the Tomahawk box launchers and Phalanx mounts, but much of the hardware for getting the shell to the target dates back to the original installations from WW2.

    Keeping the above in mind, how often is there going to be a need for bombing the shit out of a shoreline (their primary purpose, post-WW2, with there not being much of an air threat to defend against like there was during WW2)? Even if they're just sitting in dry dock, ships still cost money to keep around. Having 2 BBs (which isn't exactly going to be providing a lot of coverage, given umpteen gajillion square miles of ocean and maintenance downtime requirements) sitting around, while active, on their figurative ass for a possible role is, IMO, stupid.

    All that said, I do think that there is need for a gunfire support role in today's world. I just don't think battleships are the way to provide it, as much as the little kid in me loves the idea of being able to open up God's Own Can of Whupass. :p
     
  11. frostytheplebe

    frostytheplebe Seventh Part of the Seal

    Messages:
    2,120
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    26,885
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Framingham, Mass
    Plus the upkeep... think about it. Fuel, parts, training people to use the ancient equipment.

    Unless Cher is dancing on the deck, It's really not worth it. :p
     
  12. Mancubus

    Mancubus Rear Admiral

    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    24,035
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warsaw, Poland
    Heh my thoughts are exactly. When they will build a non-overheating, functional railgun, they will need a platform to carry it, witch will also need to be capable of supporting a massive power supply, needed by the weapon. I really thing that the next generation nuclear-powered and railgun-armed BB is the ship of the future.
     
  13. frostytheplebe

    frostytheplebe Seventh Part of the Seal

    Messages:
    2,120
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    26,885
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Framingham, Mass
    Ship of the present actually. Early last year the navy tested a 90MM rail gun successfully. The results were nothing short of impressive.

    The NEXT generation warship however I'll bet will be powered by Antimatter, if it can be stabilized.
     
  14. NinjaLA

    NinjaLA Alex Von T.

    Messages:
    1,509
    Likes Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    35,235
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Seward, AK
    I think we have some eons to go before we can channel a matter-antimatter reaction into something you could use to propel a navy vessel.
     
  15. ELTEE

    ELTEE Rear Admiral

    Messages:
    1,024
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    22,385
    Location:
    Nanuet, NY
    Well, I don't know. I'm actually quite torn on the issue of whether or not there is a place for a BB in the future.

    The arguments for letting them fade away are have been documented well here, and they certainly have merit. I just imagine a potential combat situation where you would want to supplement the striking power of a CVBG with additional options.

    I think the closest ship whose mission I'm thinking a BB of the future would follow is the Russian Kirov class battlecruiser. Imagine a ship heavily laden with missiles and hard-hitting cannon, whatever the caliber or type (hell, the way we're going - maybe we'll see lasers soon. Anyone see that 747 yet? What better place to store the power needed for massive lasers than in the hull of a BB!)

    Of course, I recognize the inherent rediculousness that stinks up my argument. Nevertheless, I DO think that adding that extra dimension to fleet ops could benefit the navy if we ever enter a large scale fleet combat situation again.
    Kirov-class_battlecruiser.jpg

    "Anyone seen a CVN around? I'm kind of hungery, thanks."

    EDIT: How does one increase the size of an attached image? Anything I upload seems constrained to the dimensions of the above.
     
  16. Death

    Death gh0d (Administrator)

    Messages:
    2,331
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    36,985
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Taylors, SC, USA
    As a side note, the YAL-1 (the laser 747) weapon is totally useless against warships. It doesn't burn through or actually destroy the targeted missile, just heats up the missile's skin during the boost phase (when it's most vulnerable) until the structure is weakened so it can no longer withstand the stress of launching.

    Not much use on a warship, either. The equipment for the laser takes up much of the fuselage of the aircraft, with most of the rest taken up by the fuel needed to generate the required power. Even carriers and BBs are restricted in hull space, never mind smaller ships.

    That Kirov analog? Good luck getting it in detection range. :p
     
  17. Drifter

    Drifter Spaceman

    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The airborne laser wouldnt be good against ships but I did read somewhere that the USN just spent a ton of money to research a railgun for surface ships. Also I read a similar story about a program for a directed energy type of CIWS. I'd assume those are a distant pipe dream at this point though.

    The Kirov was a surface ship killer meant to kill carrier groups, wasnt it? I could see China or India wanting to buy that ship off the Russians but I cant see it being very good for a western navy to use against shore targets.
    As someone pointed out before a VLS ship hits targets like a B-2 with smart bombs, a battelship pounds targets like a B-52 on a carpet bombing mission. I think the future shore support would best be provided by a UAV destroyer like the one the United Kingdom is researching. Currently Reapers and Predators can carry 8 or so hellfires or bombs. In the future I could see a destroyer sized ship carrying over 100 improved UAVs being able to support ground troops better than battleships, Zumwalts, or arsenal ships. Precision AND volumeā€¦ and the pilots are sitting in a somewhat stealthy 9000 ton ship protected by another ships VLS umbrella. Of course you COULD take it to the extreme and make something the size of Ford Class carrier or Ohio class sub a UAV slinger and just SPAM the enemy with large numbers of UCAVs... man think of howmany a Nimitz or Ford Class could carry and a boomer full of UAVs would be a crazy first strike weapon... a quick form of UAV recovery would be the trick though.... I'm just babbling now
     
  18. Drifter

    Drifter Spaceman

    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Good luck getting it ANYWHERE! Didnt that thing crap out in the middle of the gulf when it was doing a tour in South America?
     
  19. ELTEE

    ELTEE Rear Admiral

    Messages:
    1,024
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    22,385
    Location:
    Nanuet, NY
    For the record, I've been less concerned with shore bombardment from the beginning.

    I'm talking about a ship that would be able to kill lots of other ships from multiple ranges, with multiple weapons, without having to rely on aircraft and while being able to reasonably protect itself. The ship would be large and 'important' enough to draw fire away from CVBGs.

    Yeah, I know there are tons of vessels capable of that - but one that embodies the BB spirit in a fresh, modern take (sounds like I'm on Project Runway or something!)

    I guess that's my central statement, albeit super simplified and whatnot. :)
     
  20. Drifter

    Drifter Spaceman

    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I dont know if theres a ton of ships that could do that. I think the SSN is really the only one. You want something that can go solo against Carrier groups with many weapons from many ranges and can protect itself... attack sub all the way. Even a big cruiser like a Tico or a Kirov needs a support fleet and could get peppered by a carriers airwing long before it could get its hits in (if at all).
     

Share This Page