Battleship is not obsolete - Page 5




View Poll Results :Is the battleship obsolete?
Battleship is obsolete 33 51.56%
Battleship is not obsolete 27 42.19%
I don't know and I don't care 4 6.25%
Voters: 64. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
 
February 26th, 2010  
wolfen
 
[And how do you think, why battleships weren't used in 2003, when resistance from Iraqi side in general was heavier than in 1991?]

Simple, the last one was tied to a pier in Norfolk Virginia for the public to see and tour, since both of these wars are ground wars there's really no need for a battleship, besides bagdad is a little out of range for even the Wisconsin
March 12th, 2010  
Czin
 
 
We could be seeing a railgun and missile equipped ship soon. Engaging targets with the range of an aircraft carrier without risking multimillion dollar aircraft. From what I understand about railguns, a 32 megajoule model can hit with a little bit more force than a tomahawk hawk missile's impact and explosive warhead combined, due to it's sheer speed. And the projectile is much, much cheaper than a tomahawk missile because it's nothing more than a giant solid chunk of pointed metal. I see much potential in the railgun, it could make a nice addition to the world's arsenal and could make gun based artillery weapons far more potent.

Plus, look at that firetrail from the bullets they fire and tell me it's not awesome looking.
March 13th, 2010  
KnightTemplar
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by c/Commander
5", probably not, but the gun itself is pretty much a visual range weapon. The 16" is about twice as fast as a Harpoon at the muzzle, but is also twice the size, and has no onboard propulsion...so at its terminal end, I'd wager a CIWS against a 16"/50.
Would you wager a CIWS against a 16"/50 if you were the target on the receiving end?
--
March 14th, 2010  
wolfen
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czin
We could be seeing a railgun and missile equipped ship soon. Engaging targets with the range of an aircraft carrier without risking multimillion dollar aircraft. From what I understand about railguns, a 32 megajoule model can hit with a little bit more force than a tomahawk hawk missile's impact and explosive warhead combined, due to it's sheer speed. And the projectile is much, much cheaper than a tomahawk missile because it's nothing more than a giant solid chunk of pointed metal. I see much potential in the railgun, it could make a nice addition to the world's arsenal and could make gun based artillery weapons far more potent.

Plus, look at that firetrail from the bullets they fire and tell me it's not awesome looking.

I think we should say screw it and just come out with the type 2 phaser, before the enemy gets ahold of the Enterprise ( NCC1701)

Here's a hint for everybody thinking a rail gun will work on a ship, a rail gun is kinda big and I doubt that it will fire in more than one direction at once, so disabling it is easy, simply overwhelm its ability to destroy stuff, using multiple ships and battle groups, once teh gun is overwhelmed open fire on the ship carrying it. if out current govt is unable to carry out that kind of attack, that is an easy fix, put non socialists in the congress and white house.
March 14th, 2010  
c/Commander
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightTemplar
Would you wager a CIWS against a 16"/50 if you were the target on the receiving end?
As much as I would wager it against a missile...
March 15th, 2010  
Czin
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfen
I think we should say screw it and just come out with the type 2 phaser, before the enemy gets ahold of the Enterprise ( NCC1701)

Here's a hint for everybody thinking a rail gun will work on a ship, a rail gun is kinda big and I doubt that it will fire in more than one direction at once, so disabling it is easy, simply overwhelm its ability to destroy stuff, using multiple ships and battle groups, once teh gun is overwhelmed open fire on the ship carrying it. if out current govt is unable to carry out that kind of attack, that is an easy fix, put non socialists in the congress and white house.
I disagree with both the Republican and Democratic party on most-everything.

Replace the more or less useless main gun of our cruisers (and destroyers if at all possible) with a railgun and the need for expensive tomahawk missiles diminishes greatly. You will have a gun that fires a projectile that does more damage than a tomahawk missile at a fraction of the price. You'd be hard pressed to find a better deal.
March 15th, 2010  
wolfen
 
Disagreeing with the Congress of the United States now days is a smart thing, since they are becoming more and more socialist every day along with the entire govt.

But a rail gun on a ship may not be a very good idea since the ship only goes in one direction at a time, that's why they have really big guns that can turn.
here's a scenario for everybody I bet nobody has thought of yet. Take a Ages Cruiser, put a rail gun on it, and you still need as many guns that you can put on it on account of the fact that NOW, everybody in the world wants to sink that ship. And trust me you WILL be sunk before you fire a shot, you can track all eth ships you want, just remember one thing I was told back in 87, (there's 2 types of Naval Vessels, submarines......................and targets). That comment made by a friend of mine kinda made me nervous.
March 16th, 2010  
Czin
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfen
Disagreeing with the Congress of the United States now days is a smart thing, since they are becoming more and more socialist every day along with the entire govt.

But a rail gun on a ship may not be a very good idea since the ship only goes in one direction at a time, that's why they have really big guns that can turn.
here's a scenario for everybody I bet nobody has thought of yet. Take a Ages Cruiser, put a rail gun on it, and you still need as many guns that you can put on it on account of the fact that NOW, everybody in the world wants to sink that ship. And trust me you WILL be sunk before you fire a shot, you can track all eth ships you want, just remember one thing I was told back in 87, (there's 2 types of Naval Vessels, submarines......................and targets). That comment made by a friend of mine kinda made me nervous.
Mount them on all ships and put them on a turret, the main gun of most ships is pretty much just for show. Why not make it into an extremely deadly weapon?

I do like socialism in small doses, no more than what Sweden does for me. Of course, Sweden is a much smaller country populationwise than America, so it's plan may not work quite as well in the U.S. I would like my social security checks to be an amount I can actually live on in case something bad happens to my life's savings and my pension (You can never be too sure, remember, Paranoia is good, it makes you plan for everything. Though I have a good 49 years before this becomes my problem)

And not just one Aegis cruiser will have a rail gun, they will all have one, on a turret. Now lets see those tinpot dictators brown their pants as shells scream into their palaces at hypersonic velocities.
March 16th, 2010  
c/Commander
 
 
The Ticonderoga-class cruiser can't support the power requirements projected for a decent-size railgun. We will probably need to build a new class of ship for railgun mounting (though, possibly, the Zumwalt-class destroyers will have the power capabilities for the gun).
March 16th, 2010  
Czin
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by c/Commander
The Ticonderoga-class cruiser can't support the power requirements projected for a decent-size railgun. We will probably need to build a new class of ship for railgun mounting (though, possibly, the Zumwalt-class destroyers will have the power capabilities for the gun).
That class was more or less axed by congress for some reason. We could take those nuclear cruisers instead.
 


Similar Topics
Will the battle tank become obsolete?
Venezuela Test Fires Russian Missiles From Sukhoi, Battleship
500,000ton Battleship
The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Is Obsolete
IJN Yamato Mightest Battleship in History