Obsolete ships

Roach

Spaceman
Originally posted by Dragon
keep the trigger press, release it do detonate.
It even bring down Dragons.
Hmmmmm.....Dragon fighter<------->Installation/capship

duhh. I'd think it would.
I still prefer a contact warhead. If I have a warhead that powerful, I'll shoot it at something more worthwhile.
 
carriers last a long time because they can be upgraded (in a way) by the fighters they carry. since carriers are not meant to fight other cap ships it doesnt matter so much about their weaponry and defences, fighters can defend a carrier adequately. usually.
 
oops. this message is where my favourite link is. so when i load the forum up, it connects to the last page of this message. therefore i see posts that are weeks old, and i reply, so it makes no sense at all

sorry!!!
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
Not entirely true -- fighter technology often surpasses their carriers... try launching an F-14 off of a World War II era ship (G)
 

Death

gh0d (Administrator)
Originally posted by Ladiesman^
The whole thing with ships never coming anywhere near each other is kinda dull, and doesn't seem quite useful.
Seemed rather useful in nearly every conflict since WW2 that had a naval component...

Bismarck - an old, near-retirement torpedo bomber crippled its steering gear, allowing British warships to close on it.

Toronto - British carrier aircraft effectively gutted the Italian navy

Pearl Harbor - Japanese carrier aircraft knock the crap out of the ships and other equipment based on Oahu, crippling the US Pacific fleet

Lexington - put out of action by Japanese bombers, later sunk

Yorktown - crippled by Japanese airpower, the hulk sunk later by a Japanese sub

Yamato - sunk solely by US airpower

Musashi - sunk solely by US airpower

Most of the carriers of the IJN - sunk solely by US airpower

Oh, and while we're at it, why don't you ask some of the resident Brits how useless those Argentine Mirage fighters and their Exocet missiles were, during that little scuffle around the Falkland Islands almost 2 decades ago.
 

Death

gh0d (Administrator)
Originally posted by AzraeL
The Hellcat was a WW2 carrier fighter, successor to the Wildcat and (long time) predecessor to the Tomcat.
Except for having the "cat" part of the name, and being by the same manufacturer, "predecessor" is a rather significant stretch of the imaginagion.

Reusing names hardly unoriginal. The Thunderbolt was a WW2 and a modern day anti-tank strike aircraft.
Technically, the A-10 is called the Thunderbolt II, meaning that somewhere between today and 2669, when the T-bolt VII was introduced, there were 4 other craft to use the Thunderbolt name.

The Vietnam era Phantom is, from memory, technically the Phantom II so presumeably there was a Phantom I sometime.
The original Phantom was one of the first practical carrier jet aircraft, serving in Korea during that particular conflict.

There have been Scimitars, Sabres, Banshees, Panthers, Vampires and Devatsators.
Actually, except for the Devastator (WW2 dive bomber), none of those names have, at least to date (beginning of the 21st century), been used for aircraft. ("vampire", though, is the slang used to refer to incoming missiles, from the appearance of the NTDS [Naval Tactical Data System, IIRC] symbol used to denote a hostile missile.)
 

Death

gh0d (Administrator)
Originally posted by papachulo10
Yes we do have one Seawolf currently in service. Whether more will be built is up to debate in Congress but even if they do build more I don't think that it will become a major class like the LA's. The cold war is over and many people think that the Seawolf is to expensive. SO probbably the new Virginia class will be the next major sub class.
The current plan is for 3 Seawolf-class submarines: the Seawolf (obviously), the Conneticutt (sp?), and the Peanuthead... err, Jimmy Carter. ;)

After those three are built, there will be no more Seawolf-class submarines. Instead, a new generation of submarines, which are smaller, cheaper, and more specialized than the Seawolf or its predecessor (the Los Angeles-class), both of which were designed for a single great threat, the Soviet Union, and not a bunch of little brush wars. IIRC the new class is to be the Virginia-class, but it's been a while since I've looked, so don't be surprised if I'm incorrect.
 

pendell

Spaceman
Originally posted by Master_Anarchist
the falklands was b4 i was born, but being a brit id like to know what went down, so to speak? what did the argentines sink?
Here's a link:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/malvinas.htm

If memory serves, the Argentines used land-based Air
power to sink or severely damage 1 destroyer (ISTR the
Sheffield), 2 frigates, and 1 landing craft. In exchange,
the RN killed the cruiser Belgrano and some 70-odd
aircraft. And they got the islands, of course.

Respectfully,

Brian P.
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
There have been Scimitars, Sabres, Banshees, Panthers, Vampires and Devatsators.
Actually, except for the Devastator (WW2 dive bomber), none of those names have, at least to date (beginning of the 21st century), been used for aircraft. ("vampire", though, is the slang used to refer to incoming missiles, from the appearance of the NTDS [Naval Tactical Data System, IIRC] symbol used to denote a hostile missile.) [/B]
Err... the F-86 Sabre, F2H Banshee, the F9F Panther and the British DH100 Vampire and AW35 Scimitar come to mind (G)
 

Dragon

Spaceman
And the HMS Prince of Wales was sunk by japonese planes very easy since it did not have fighter cover.

I dont think that the Phanton was in service in the Korea war, the US did not have missiles for aircraft at the time of the Korea conflit (the sidewinder was intruduced in that time, but not before the war started) and I remeber that the 1st "efective" US Navy fighter on korea was based on the Sabre.
 

Death

gh0d (Administrator)
Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
Err... the F-86 Sabre, F2H Banshee, the F9F Panther and the British DH100 Vampire and AW35 Scimitar come to mind (G)
<Simpson type="Homer">D'OH!</Simpson>

Shows what happens when you don't engage brain before putting fingers into gear.
 

iCe

Vice Admiral
Most of the ships in WC are named after the planes that have/are around. Take the A-10 Thunderbolt II. Has a lot of fire power, same as the Thunderbolt VII.

Hey, speeking of the A-10. It looks a lot like the Rapier in the movie. I mean, the Rapier in the movie looks a lot like an A-10. The place were the engines are, the gun...
 

OriginalPhoenix

Professor Emeritus
Originally posted by Death
There have been Scimitars, Sabres, Banshees, Panthers, Vampires and Devatsators.
Actually, except for the Devastator (WW2 dive bomber), none of those names have, at least to date (beginning of the 21st century), been used for aircraft. ("vampire", though, is the slang used to refer to incoming missiles, from the appearance of the NTDS [Naval Tactical Data System, IIRC] symbol used to denote a hostile missile.)
Actually, only the Scim has not been used for a reasonably well-known craft.

Saber - F-86, Korean War
Banshee - short-lived US carrier fighter
Panther - another short-lived US carrier fighter
Vampire - British bomber (50's and 60's era, IIRC)
Devastator - US carrier-borne TORPEDO bomber at the outset of WWII. Was totally obliterated at Midway, where 36 of 41 were lost.

[Edited by OriginalPhoenix on 02-17-2001 at 14:40]
 

Napoleon

Spaceman
The panther was not that short lived, it served effectivly as a fighter/attack craft throughout the Korean Conflict and served in 1 capacity or another into the 1960's
 

OriginalPhoenix

Professor Emeritus
Originally posted by Napoleon
The panther was not that short lived, it served effectivly as a fighter/attack craft throughout the Korean Conflict and served in 1 capacity or another into the 1960's
I was speaking in terms of it being a frontline, primary craft. Compared to such fighters today -- F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, which have all served for over 20 years -- it could be termed short-lived.
 
Top