Battleship is not obsolete - Page 6




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Battleship is obsolete 33 51.56%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

 
--
 
March 16th, 2010  
c/Commander
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czin
That class was more or less axed by congress for some reason. We could take those nuclear cruisers instead.
No, Congress is trying to keep it alive. We're trying to kill it because it's unnecessary and expensive (and, for crying out loud, it's a 15,000 ton destroyer...)

The problem with the nuclear cruiser concept is that an aircraft carrier reactor is too big, but a submarine reactor is too small - leaving us with the development costs of a new series of reactors.

Honestly, if the DDG-1000 was called CG-1000, and had Aegis, we might be more amenable to buying them...
March 16th, 2010  
Czin
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by c/Commander
No, Congress is trying to keep it alive. We're trying to kill it because it's unnecessary and expensive (and, for crying out loud, it's a 15,000 ton destroyer...)

The problem with the nuclear cruiser concept is that an aircraft carrier reactor is too big, but a submarine reactor is too small - leaving us with the development costs of a new series of reactors.

Honestly, if the DDG-1000 was called CG-1000, and had Aegis, we might be more amenable to buying them...
What happened to that nuclear cruiser we had? And shouldn't a 15,000 ton ship be called a cruiser? That's WAY too big for a destroyer.

I'd personally use a railgun over a manned aircraft, no risk of losing a pilot, just as much range, and more destructive to the enemy. Stationary targets would be dealt with the rail gun and satellite guidance, mobile targets will be dealt with long range cruise missiles and drone guidance.
March 16th, 2010  
Chukpike
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by c/Commander

The problem with the nuclear cruiser concept is that an aircraft carrier reactor is too big, but a submarine reactor is too small - leaving us with the development costs of a new series of reactors.
It is not a problem, the US can design a reactor to fit the Navies needs. It has all ready been done.

See:
USS CGN-9 Long Beach
DLGN/CGN-25 Bainbridge (My Avatar)
DLGN/CGN-35 Truxton



New US aircraft carriers are getting more powerful reactors to accommodate increased power needs such as the electromagnetic catapults.
--
March 16th, 2010  
Czin
 
 
I cannot wait to see a cruiser or larger vessel purpose built to carry a railgun battery. Shoot the badguy at a range where his dinky land based ASMs can't reach you.
March 18th, 2010  
wolfen
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chukpike
It is not a problem, the US can design a reactor to fit the Navies needs. It has all ready been done.

See:
USS CGN-9 Long Beach
DLGN/CGN-25 Bainbridge (My Avatar)
DLGN/CGN-35 Truxton



New US aircraft carriers are getting more powerful reactors to accommodate increased power needs such as the electromagnetic catapults.
Ya know I just noticed that your avatar is the Bainbridge, weer you on here? My dad was a plank owner
March 18th, 2010  
Chukpike
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfen
Ya know I just noticed that your avatar is the Bainbridge, weer you on here? My dad was a plank owner
Yes, I served on the Bainbridge from 1971-1974.
March 18th, 2010  
Czin
 
 
So Chukpike, how would you rate the feasibility of a purpose built Nuclear powered Railgun cruiser/battlecruiser/battleship/dreadnought/whatever the hell you want to call it? Secondly, what would be the specs of a purpose built railgun ship if you designed one?
March 18th, 2010  
Chukpike
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czin
So Chukpike, how would you rate the feasibility of a purpose built Nuclear powered Rail gun cruiser/battlecruiser/battleship/dreadnought/whatever the hell you want to call it? Secondly, what would be the specs of a purpose built railgun ship if you designed one?
I voted battleships as obsolete.

To answer your question;
First a practical rail gun has to be developed. That would allow size and power requirements to be determined. Once you know this, you could determine the size of a platform necessary for its operation.
March 18th, 2010  
Czin
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chukpike
I voted battleships as obsolete.

To answer your question;
First a practical rail gun has to be developed. That would allow size and power requirements to be determined. Once you know this, you could determine the size of a platform necessary for its operation.
I do not believe it would be impossible to build a practical railgun, especially considering that middle class men can build small ones in their garage. Since building a rail gun is apparently not that hard a job, reducing the size and strengthening the barrel to a point where they can replace the main gun on a ship fairly easily within a few decades.
March 18th, 2010  
wolfen
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chukpike
Yes, I served on the Bainbridge from 1971-1974.
Ever hear of MMCM Hummell? the U.S.S.bainbridge was his second to last ship he retired in 70
 


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