Battleship Porn

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

  1. frostytheplebe

    frostytheplebe Seventh Part of the Seal

    Messages:
    2,120
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    26,885
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Framingham, Mass
    One of them did... but keep in mind Russia was too poor to keep them up anymore thats why they sell off their navy.

    Personally, I don't think a Battleship will ever grace the ocean under active service again. The next generation warship will most likely be nothing short of a TCS Midway style ship. Something along the lines of Arsenal Gear from the terrible sequel to MGS1.

    Something that can most like submerge, launch aircraft, and is equipped with heavy weaponry. Basically an all in one warship. I kitbashed a model of one out of an old carrier model I had. I called it the Arsenal Class "Capital type" warship. Equipped with AEGIS weaponry, the lastest VSTOL fighters, point laser defenses, Rail guns, stealth armor, internal automated repair systems, and electromagnetic force fields.

    It's not that far off. I'm willing to bet the Navy will have something like this on the drawing board in the next 20-50 years.
     
  2. Drifter

    Drifter Spaceman

    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Even if all of those techs came online in the timeframe you have listed I cant see any nation having the $$$ to put it all together in one big under water carrier supership thing. It would be pretty slick though...
     
  3. Jebe

    Jebe Spaceman

    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ELTEE:
    You think you're besmirching me? Am I the USMC Commadant now? Grow up, and learn some history given the bombardment was a critical part of Schwarzkoff's Hail Mary Plan.

    [​IMG]

    NGFS mission replacement:
    [​IMG]
    Note range utterly eclipses that of the Iowa-class' 16/50s and is both more precise and scalable for any given fire mission. Rate of fire differences are not sufficient you avoid needing multiple Zumwalts to meet sheer throwing capacity, but to be blunt that is rarely appropriate if precision is adequate to hit the actual target. Nevermind a Zumwalt can do missions a Iowa could never dream of fulfilling both because of smaller munitions and greater range.

    This is the current solution of the USN and USMC for the NGFS role. You got an attitude problem with it, it's not me you're flipping off, it's them.

    I've said my piece. You can posture all you want, doesn't matter to me.

    None of the above is classified, nor for that matter should I even be able to access classified information if someone is feeling anxious about that.
     
  4. Quarto

    Quarto Unknown Enemy

    Messages:
    11,855
    Likes Received:
    260
    Trophy Points:
    69,385
    Location:
    Poland
    Heh. Don't worry, the way you behave, none of us would ever suspect that you might have access to classified information.
     
  5. Jebe

    Jebe Spaceman

    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Care to elaborate on that?
     
  6. Quarto

    Quarto Unknown Enemy

    Messages:
    11,855
    Likes Received:
    260
    Trophy Points:
    69,385
    Location:
    Poland
    Yes. Every single time I've seen you take part in any kind of discussion, you're incredibly aggressive. The way you act, it's as if you were always personally offended by the fact that anyone would dare disagree with you, and your responses are always borderline insulting ("Grow up", "you can posture all you want", etc. etc.), even though everyone talks civil to you.

    It's hugely irritating, and if you keep it up, I'll simply start deleting your posts.
     
  7. Frosty

    Frosty a full fledged GF

    Messages:
    2,043
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36,885
    Location:
    Cooter, MO
    I see stuff like ">50 X smaller" and I just want to slap somebody.
     
  8. frostytheplebe

    frostytheplebe Seventh Part of the Seal

    Messages:
    2,120
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    26,885
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Framingham, Mass
    I think it's more realistic for them to invest in three or four of these things over 100s of cruisers, destroyers, frigates, and support vessels. Each of which needs constant upgrading, repairs, refit, etc.

    I mean look at the carriers. The US designs them to keep them in service as long as possible in order to stave off having to build a new one. The only reason they are retiring our older carriers now is because the Kitty Hawk class carrier is incapable of housing the next generation fighters. I personally thought they'd never retire the Kitty Hawk herself.
     
  9. Death

    Death gh0d (Administrator)

    Messages:
    2,331
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    36,985
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Taylors, SC, USA
    How, exactly, are you going to have global coverage with only "three or four" ships? That argument is only slightly less silly than keeping 2 BBs on the active roster.

    Also, with more smaller ships, you can better adjust the available capabilities to the actual requirements of the moment. Rule 37 may say there's no such thing as overkill, but in the real world it's pretty stupid to use an "arsenal ship" for supporting a minor operation in some rinky-dink 3rd world shithole. Even if that ship doesn't fire everything off, while it's there it's effectively out of commission as far as the rest of the world is concerned, since one hull can only be in one place at a time.

    And BTW, Quarto, being a jerk doesn't prohibit access to classified information, in and of itself. :p
     
  10. frostytheplebe

    frostytheplebe Seventh Part of the Seal

    Messages:
    2,120
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    26,885
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Framingham, Mass
    I'll concede. This is all theory. There is no way to answer your question without knowing exactly what technology is available at that point in time. Perhaps the ships will have sufficient air and weapons range that the ship doesn't even need to be in close vicinity, but I do not know.

    But unless the current situation in America changes, it may be more likely then you think. The financial situation here as well as the latest trend of how the military is viewed may prompt the idea of such a vessel.

    I mean look around. Otis, out by me, has been downsized to near closing, the sub base (CT i think?) has been closed, and the Gov. is not stopping there.

    Maybe it is silly, maybe it doesn't make sense, but it still could happen.
     
  11. Quarto

    Quarto Unknown Enemy

    Messages:
    11,855
    Likes Received:
    260
    Trophy Points:
    69,385
    Location:
    Poland
    So... you think the result of all this cost-cutting will be the construction of a hyper-expensive, new and completely untried kind of ship...?
     
  12. frostytheplebe

    frostytheplebe Seventh Part of the Seal

    Messages:
    2,120
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    26,885
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Framingham, Mass
    Built by the lowest bidder to replace entire fleets of ships, many of which are aging, sucking money for repairs, and fuel, yeah I think so.
     
  13. ELTEE

    ELTEE Rear Admiral

    Messages:
    1,024
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    22,385
    Location:
    Nanuet, NY
    This reminded me of one of my favorite sub classes: The I-400.
    i400b.jpg

    I400_2.jpg


    While it had no impact on the conflict, the sub itself is pretty amitious and impressive to me. Let's build a giant one that will launch F-35s and mount rail guns on the bow! :D

    I really hope this does not happen, but I have to admit that we appear to be suffering an identity crisis when it comes to surface support ships. I could be completely wrong, but despite public positioning on current projects, it seems that even the current navy leadership is not settled on one strategy or vision for the future of our fleet.

    While I understand the need for a versatile ship that can respond to situations in what Death refers to as 'rinky-dink 3rd world shitholes' (still laughing at that, btw!) I personally believe that we need to ensure that we maintain an emphasis on the possibility of a future blue water engagement. Though this may seem really obvious, we need to make sure that any ships we purchase are able to fight other ships effectively. Sometimes I worry that we're losing sight of this.
     
  14. frostytheplebe

    frostytheplebe Seventh Part of the Seal

    Messages:
    2,120
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    26,885
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Framingham, Mass
    I agree with you. I'm not saying that this SHOULD happen. I'm saying that someone may possibly at some point look at the logistics of something like this and at some point put it on the drawing board. Personally, if we want to project power, then put some new cruisers and destroyers on the production line, retire the Enterprise, the new carriers look awesome et al. But I think that an "All in one" ship could be in our future.

    Hey Eltee, I remember that sub, the thing rocks!
     
  15. Quarto

    Quarto Unknown Enemy

    Messages:
    11,855
    Likes Received:
    260
    Trophy Points:
    69,385
    Location:
    Poland
    See, here's the thing. Those entire fleets - they were built over many, many, many years. They are not all going to break down at once - you only need to replace them one or two at a time. The solution you're proposing (assuming it even makes sense - an all-in-one ship sounds like crazy-talk to me, but for the sake of the argument, let's pretend that it's a good idea), is to replace all those ships with a much smaller number of (more expensive) ships. Therefore, you'll wind up spending your money in a much smaller space of time - maybe a decade, instead of three decades. That's a much, much harder pill to swallow when presenting your budget to the Congress.

    In short, just because something will objectively have a lower cost overall doesn't mean it's cheaper subjectively.
     
  16. frostytheplebe

    frostytheplebe Seventh Part of the Seal

    Messages:
    2,120
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    26,885
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Framingham, Mass
    That's considering all the ships came into service at the same time. In the navy it takes a long time to build new ships, so it is not like we're sending half of our fleet in for repairs at once, and then the other half in 15 years later. If you take a look down at Norfolk or any one of the other bases, its somewhat uncommon to not see a ship being refit, or resupplied. So basically the navy is constantly at work on one ship or another.

    Now I understand the arguments your making here, but I still believe that servicing between three to perhaps 10 super ships would be less costly then constantly repairing the many MANY ships in service now.

    The major hole in my theory, which I'm surprised no one pointed out, is the one Zero made against the Midway, "This tub gets hauled then what? Confed put all it's eggs into one little basket!"
     
  17. ELTEE

    ELTEE Rear Admiral

    Messages:
    1,024
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    22,385
    Location:
    Nanuet, NY
    This is precisely why I'm concerned about having another ship type that is as feared as a carrier. What happens if we lose a carrier or two straight away at the beginning of an engagement? We really haven't been faced with that prospect since Midway.

    It is likely going to be harder and harder to protect our carriers from the myriad of threats an adversary navy will be able to array against us (emp, next generation supercavitating torpedos, etc.) Assymetrical warfare can, as it always does, come into play here - but many of our potential opponents are smart and stack their decks with anything that will help them bag a carrier. They reason that perhaps we won't stomach a fight after that big of a loss - it would be humilitating for us.

    Perhaps that's true - I'm not sure how we would react.

    The point is, I'd feel more comfortable knowing we had other options for getting the job done - or at least for taking some of the heat off the carriers. In some of these locations, the air force might not be there to play as large a role as it has in recent conflicts. We'll need something to provide a stopgap for the possible loss of local air superiority that will still allow the fleet to continue the mission.

    I mean, maybe the Tikes are up to the task - but I just don't see them drawing that kind of fire or being placed that high on an enemy's priority list. There would be very little that would convince an enemy to give a carrier a second look. Er, not a second look - you guys know what I mean. ;)

    As an aside, this new torpedo technology is really scary. It will be very hard to counter in my opinion. We'll probably end up creating an underwater version of the rolling airframe missiles, or something like that. I don't think decoys would work well enough - these things travel too fast. Thoughts?
     
  18. frostytheplebe

    frostytheplebe Seventh Part of the Seal

    Messages:
    2,120
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    26,885
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Framingham, Mass
    Perhaps new hydrofoil technology to bring the ship's hull out of the water all together, Or perhaps tougher armor, I still think EM warfare such as a defensive network, or a pulse to deactivate computerized tech would counter those pretty well.
     
  19. Dundradal

    Dundradal Frog Blast the Vent Core!

    Messages:
    6,479
    Likes Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    51,985
    Location:
    Washington, D.C.
    Well to jump to the other BB thread you started...Battlestations Pacific does let you use the I-400 and launch up to 3 of its aircraft (Sensi?) when surfaced. They are great for scouting and carry a medium bomb load.
     
  20. ELTEE

    ELTEE Rear Admiral

    Messages:
    1,024
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    22,385
    Location:
    Nanuet, NY
    Uh oh - that might convince me to start with that game instead. That's pretty awesome!

    The aircraft were the Aichi M6A Seiran floatplane bombers.

    If they had actually managed to attack the Panama canal, it would have been interesting to see how that would effect the overall progress of the US campaign. Alot would depend on timing - so many what ifs which are common when thinking about any technology or tactic. What if the me-262 became available sooner? What if the He-280 was selected instead and produced all those years earlier?

    Impossible questions to answer, but fun nonetheless - and always great excuses for good conversation and debate!
     

Share This Page