User Panel
[#1]
Quoted:
Yes. Nothing puts the fear of god in the enemy like 16" guns raining down giant projectiles on their heads. View Quote I beg to differ. Someone starts popping off nine 16" guns in my direction, I might get lucky. Someone plants an AGM-114 right where I am, I don't need luck, I need Jesus, Mohammed, the Ahura Mazda, Ishvara, Odin, and/or a healthy dose of enthusiastic ancestors, depending on my faith. |
|
[#2]
|
|
[#5]
Quoted:
As much as I love the awe inspiring IOWAs, no to "bring back." However, HELL YES to a new design of similar size/armor, but with a modern propulsion plant and next gen weapons/Combat Systems - whatever is in the works that makes Aegis look simplistic and crude. View Quote Armor is nothing but increased fuel costs. There's nothing a modern BBG could do that DDG could not, and you'll never get a BBGN because nuke is too expensive. |
|
[#6]
Quoted:
Armor is nothing but increased fuel costs. There's nothing a modern BBG could do that DDG could not, and you'll never get a BBGN because nuke is too expensive. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
As much as I love the awe inspiring IOWAs, no to "bring back." However, HELL YES to a new design of similar size/armor, but with a modern propulsion plant and next gen weapons/Combat Systems - whatever is in the works that makes Aegis look simplistic and crude. Armor is nothing but increased fuel costs. There's nothing a modern BBG could do that DDG could not, and you'll never get a BBGN because nuke is too expensive. This is impossible to fap to... |
|
[#8]
Quoted:
Hate to say it, but no. Battleships are awesome floating testosterone supplements, but still obsolete. One decent cruise missile, and all that $$$, weapons, and men are at the bottom of the ocean. I'd call it a floating version of the gigantic German artillery pieces of the World Wars: impressive as hell, not actually all that practical. I'd rather have 3 destroyers (or one carrier) for the money/material it takes to make 1 battleship. View Quote Most modern "destroyers" are larger than what we once referred to as "heavy cruisers". Currently, even large anti-ship cruise missiles are designed around blast-type warheads to destroy unarmored ship systems. It's the ship equivilent to the "mobility kill" on a tank. Armored ships would require newer warhead designs or the use of nukes. Also, remember that CIWS have improved dramatically, and recent testing with lasers have been highly promising. In truth, in the near future a traditional fast, heavily-armored battleship design with a mix of large-caliber guns and missiles would be quite feasible from both a tactical and strategic standpoint. Only problem is, according to my dad who was once in the ship construction field, our industries simply are not up to the task of producing the required components and armor any more. |
|
[#9]
If they could make small rail guns then sure. No missiles would get close and you can't shoot down rail gun projectiles.
|
|
[#10]
Quoted:
Most modern "destroyers" are larger than what we once referred to as "heavy cruisers". Currently, even large anti-ship cruise missiles are designed around blast-type warheads to destroy unarmored ship systems. It's the ship equivilent to the "mobility kill" on a tank. Armored ships would require newer warhead designs or the use of nukes. Also, remember that CIWS have improved dramatically, and recent testing with lasers have been highly promising. In truth, in the near future a traditional fast, heavily-armored battleship design with a mix of large-caliber guns and missiles would be quite feasible from both a tactical and strategic standpoint. Only problem is, according to my dad who was once in the ship construction field, our industries simply are not up to the task of producing the required components and armor any more. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Hate to say it, but no. Battleships are awesome floating testosterone supplements, but still obsolete. One decent cruise missile, and all that $$$, weapons, and men are at the bottom of the ocean. I'd call it a floating version of the gigantic German artillery pieces of the World Wars: impressive as hell, not actually all that practical. I'd rather have 3 destroyers (or one carrier) for the money/material it takes to make 1 battleship. Most modern "destroyers" are larger than what we once referred to as "heavy cruisers". Currently, even large anti-ship cruise missiles are designed around blast-type warheads to destroy unarmored ship systems. It's the ship equivilent to the "mobility kill" on a tank. Armored ships would require newer warhead designs or the use of nukes. Also, remember that CIWS have improved dramatically, and recent testing with lasers have been highly promising. In truth, in the near future a traditional fast, heavily-armored battleship design with a mix of large-caliber guns and missiles would be quite feasible from both a tactical and strategic standpoint. Only problem is, according to my dad who was once in the ship construction field, our industries simply are not up to the task of producing the required components and armor any more. Have you ever heard of torpedoes? Armor lost the race -- as it always will. You can't armor something against an ADCAP. And tell me, what is it you think a BB would do that a DDG cannot do already? |
|
[#11]
|
|
[#12]
|
|
[#13]
Quoted: Good grief. Fully read the linked article OP. Can you imagine the costs involved in all that nonsense? I suspect it might end up a respectable fraction of the total GDP. But let's ignore that for a moment, in fact, let's ignore a whole bunch of stuff, and think on a little thought experiment, with numbers admittedly yanked out of my behind, because there's really no baseline in reality to get really good figures from. Let's pretend that someone, somewhere, comes up with a revolutionary design for a modern battleship. This thing's got armor, active and passive defense systems, a good new gun system for naval gunfire support, good missile capacity, and the tech and electronic warfare suites needed to employ those missiles for everything possible, BMD, ASW, AAD, ASuW, land attack, everything. Let's figure this thing, which you know is going to have be pretty darn expensive, manages to do everything, and is equivalent to, oh, let's say 12 DDGs. That's right, this thing can handle the job of a dozen DDGs, and somehow, through some magic of accounting, let's say it actually manages to only cost what 6 DDGs would. So, there we go, we got us a battleship. Now, how many do we need? Ya gotta figure we'll be needing one on each coast, right? So there's 2. And we're probably gonna need one in the Med or the Persian Gulf area, and there's the Indian Ocean, so there's another 2. And we're probably gonna want at least one more for unknown contingencies, so let's make it 5 in total. 5 battleships in operation at any one time. Now, since ships don't have warp drive, we gotta account for travel times to wherever each ship is to be deployed, and we also have to figure in the maintenance and refit schedules, along with periodic complete overhauls, so we're really gonna need 3 of these for each one we want deployed, so we're probably gonna need 15 of these battleships. So there we go, we've got 15 battleships, with 5 deployed at any given time. Which is great until we need to address some emergency, or if we get into a fight with someone and lose one---because losing one wouldn't be like losing a DDG---remember, we've got far fewer of these things. But for the cost of that, we could have 90 DDGs (which you might note is 28 more than we actually have,) which can be deployed and used in a much more flexible fashion. So no, it is not time to bring back the battleships, even if all we look at is cost and flexibility, and ignore all the other stuff which has been hashed out here before by the actual naval personnel on this board with far more experience and knowledge than I, some of whom will probably poke some holes in what I just wrote as well. View Quote |
|
[#14]
Quoted:
isnt the DDG-1000 only a few feet shorter than some of the BB's that were anchored at Pearl Harbor? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Good grief. Fully read the linked article OP. Can you imagine the costs involved in all that nonsense? I suspect it might end up a respectable fraction of the total GDP. But let's ignore that for a moment, in fact, let's ignore a whole bunch of stuff, and think on a little thought experiment, with numbers admittedly yanked out of my behind, because there's really no baseline in reality to get really good figures from. Let's pretend that someone, somewhere, comes up with a revolutionary design for a modern battleship. This thing's got armor, active and passive defense systems, a good new gun system for naval gunfire support, good missile capacity, and the tech and electronic warfare suites needed to employ those missiles for everything possible, BMD, ASW, AAD, ASuW, land attack, everything. Let's figure this thing, which you know is going to have be pretty darn expensive, manages to do everything, and is equivalent to, oh, let's say 12 DDGs. That's right, this thing can handle the job of a dozen DDGs, and somehow, through some magic of accounting, let's say it actually manages to only cost what 6 DDGs would. So, there we go, we got us a battleship. Now, how many do we need? Ya gotta figure we'll be needing one on each coast, right? So there's 2. And we're probably gonna need one in the Med or the Persian Gulf area, and there's the Indian Ocean, so there's another 2. And we're probably gonna want at least one more for unknown contingencies, so let's make it 5 in total. 5 battleships in operation at any one time. Now, since ships don't have warp drive, we gotta account for travel times to wherever each ship is to be deployed, and we also have to figure in the maintenance and refit schedules, along with periodic complete overhauls, so we're really gonna need 3 of these for each one we want deployed, so we're probably gonna need 15 of these battleships. So there we go, we've got 15 battleships, with 5 deployed at any given time. Which is great until we need to address some emergency, or if we get into a fight with someone and lose one---because losing one wouldn't be like losing a DDG---remember, we've got far fewer of these things. But for the cost of that, we could have 90 DDGs (which you might note is 28 more than we actually have,) which can be deployed and used in a much more flexible fashion. So no, it is not time to bring back the battleships, even if all we look at is cost and flexibility, and ignore all the other stuff which has been hashed out here before by the actual naval personnel on this board with far more experience and knowledge than I, some of whom will probably poke some holes in what I just wrote as well. lol. People don't even fact check their own facts. |
|
[#15]
Quoted: That's why the Zumwalt class exists. No need for a BB. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: If they could make small rail guns then sure. No missiles would get close and you can't shoot down rail gun projectiles. That's why the Zumwalt class exists. No need for a BB. Yeah but it'll only have one or two rail guns at most. A ship with a whole battery of the things would be far cooler. I mean the whole reason the Navy exists is to make cool things, right? |
|
[#16]
Quoted: lol. People don't even fact check their own facts. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Good grief. Fully read the linked article OP. Can you imagine the costs involved in all that nonsense? I suspect it might end up a respectable fraction of the total GDP. But let's ignore that for a moment, in fact, let's ignore a whole bunch of stuff, and think on a little thought experiment, with numbers admittedly yanked out of my behind, because there's really no baseline in reality to get really good figures from. Let's pretend that someone, somewhere, comes up with a revolutionary design for a modern battleship. This thing's got armor, active and passive defense systems, a good new gun system for naval gunfire support, good missile capacity, and the tech and electronic warfare suites needed to employ those missiles for everything possible, BMD, ASW, AAD, ASuW, land attack, everything. Let's figure this thing, which you know is going to have be pretty darn expensive, manages to do everything, and is equivalent to, oh, let's say 12 DDGs. That's right, this thing can handle the job of a dozen DDGs, and somehow, through some magic of accounting, let's say it actually manages to only cost what 6 DDGs would. So, there we go, we got us a battleship. Now, how many do we need? Ya gotta figure we'll be needing one on each coast, right? So there's 2. And we're probably gonna need one in the Med or the Persian Gulf area, and there's the Indian Ocean, so there's another 2. And we're probably gonna want at least one more for unknown contingencies, so let's make it 5 in total. 5 battleships in operation at any one time. Now, since ships don't have warp drive, we gotta account for travel times to wherever each ship is to be deployed, and we also have to figure in the maintenance and refit schedules, along with periodic complete overhauls, so we're really gonna need 3 of these for each one we want deployed, so we're probably gonna need 15 of these battleships. So there we go, we've got 15 battleships, with 5 deployed at any given time. Which is great until we need to address some emergency, or if we get into a fight with someone and lose one---because losing one wouldn't be like losing a DDG---remember, we've got far fewer of these things. But for the cost of that, we could have 90 DDGs (which you might note is 28 more than we actually have,) which can be deployed and used in a much more flexible fashion. So no, it is not time to bring back the battleships, even if all we look at is cost and flexibility, and ignore all the other stuff which has been hashed out here before by the actual naval personnel on this board with far more experience and knowledge than I, some of whom will probably poke some holes in what I just wrote as well. lol. People don't even fact check their own facts. |
|
[#17]
Rail guns used to be science fiction..
what about the "Rods from God". |
|
[#19]
Quoted:
Yeah but it'll only have one or two rail guns at most. A ship with a whole battery of the things would be far cooler. I mean the whole reason the Navy exists is to make cool things, right? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If they could make small rail guns then sure. No missiles would get close and you can't shoot down rail gun projectiles. That's why the Zumwalt class exists. No need for a BB. Yeah but it'll only have one or two rail guns at most. A ship with a whole battery of the things would be far cooler. I mean the whole reason the Navy exists is to make cool things, right? Where the fuck would you get the power to run a "whole battery" of railguns, and to what purpose would you put such a ship? "far cooler" isn't a requirements statement that I know of. Give me an effect -- what do you need to occur, and tell me why a DDG can't do it. |
|
[#20]
|
|
[#21]
Quoted:
Where the fuck would you get the power to run a "whole battery" of railguns, and to what purpose would you put such a ship? "far cooler" isn't a requirements statement that I know of. Give me an effect -- what do you need to occur, and tell me why a DDG can't do it. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If they could make small rail guns then sure. No missiles would get close and you can't shoot down rail gun projectiles. That's why the Zumwalt class exists. No need for a BB. Yeah but it'll only have one or two rail guns at most. A ship with a whole battery of the things would be far cooler. I mean the whole reason the Navy exists is to make cool things, right? Where the fuck would you get the power to run a "whole battery" of railguns, and to what purpose would you put such a ship? "far cooler" isn't a requirements statement that I know of. Give me an effect -- what do you need to occur, and tell me why a DDG can't do it. Japan location makes your opinion irrelevant. Japan navy is all submersible and they weren't submarines. |
|
[#22]
No.
Modern warfare isn't done with naval cannon. It's done with cruise missiles that do pop-up maneuvers at terminal and drop down on the the thin 2-3" thick top decks with a few thousand pounds of high explosive in a missile 25 feet long weighing hundreds and sometimes thousands of pounds moving at hundreds of miles an hour. One modern missile would destroy a battleship stem to stern ... and throw the mechanical computers used to plot those guns out of calibration. |
|
[#23]
Quoted:
That's why the Zumwalt class exists. No need for a BB. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
If they could make small rail guns then sure. No missiles would get close and you can't shoot down rail gun projectiles. That's why the Zumwalt class exists. No need for a BB. All three of them. |
|
[#24]
Quoted: Where the fuck would you get the power to run a "whole battery" of railguns, and to what purpose would you put such a ship? "far cooler" isn't a requirements statement that I know of. Give me an effect -- what do you need to occur, and tell me why a DDG can't do it. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If they could make small rail guns then sure. No missiles would get close and you can't shoot down rail gun projectiles. That's why the Zumwalt class exists. No need for a BB. Yeah but it'll only have one or two rail guns at most. A ship with a whole battery of the things would be far cooler. I mean the whole reason the Navy exists is to make cool things, right? Where the fuck would you get the power to run a "whole battery" of railguns, and to what purpose would you put such a ship? "far cooler" isn't a requirements statement that I know of. Give me an effect -- what do you need to occur, and tell me why a DDG can't do it. You took my post way too seriously. |
|
[#25]
In before Dport comes and educates us all.
But i say yes. Nuke batteships with rail guns!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
[#26]
I don't think they should bring back battleships, per se, but a much more robust zumwalt that included bigger guns, more automation, and a smaller crew would be sweet. We have limited sustained bombardment capabilities in the Navy these days. I'd like to see a 1000lb class warhead and some cool new range extending tech. Cruise missiles are great, but they are also very expensive one use only tech. Guns can pound away for days on end. Few things more demoralizing to an enemy than near-constant shelling.
Also, the super zum would be more able to take hits. It's all cool to say "it can do x, y, and z so it doesn't get hit!", but in war, shit happens and your shit will always get hit. It's inevitable. So yeah, give it great defenses, but also give it good old fashioned armor, and lots of it. Especially since we will soon be in an era in which swarms of drones will likely use smallish weapons. If you're going to be survivable, you gotta be able to take hits. As far as subs go, they don't magically make surface ships obsolete. Not until they have working super cvitating torpedoes anyway... Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
[#27]
I beg to differ. Someone starts popping off nine 16" guns in my direction, I might get lucky. Someone plants an AGM-114 right where I am, I don't need luck, I need Jesus, Mohammed, the Ahura Mazda, Ishvara, Odin, and/or a healthy dose of enthusiastic ancestors, depending on my faith. View Quote Weapons that always hit what you aim at are good, but they have an Achilles heel: you aren't always aiming them to the right place and sometimes a miss is more effective than a hit. Yeah, blowing up the ball bearing factory helped the war effort, but ravaging large sections of major cities told the krauts that saw it, that they were defeated. Since the common use of smart weapons we've had a poor track record of convincing enemy populations that they've been beaten. I don't think that's a coincidence. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
[#28]
Seems like some would be perfectly fine with a Panamax sized freighter carrying those 7-round Tomahawk cylinders that the converted Ohio-class subs carry.
22 cylinders = 154 cruise missiles A very rough calculation for a Panamax, based solely on a conservative estimate of deck area, produces a 7-round capability of 44,562 total missiles. |
|
[#29]
Quoted:
No. Modern warfare isn't done with naval cannon. It's done with cruise missiles that do pop-up maneuvers at terminal and drop down on the the thin 2-3" thick top decks with a few thousand pounds of high explosive in a missile 25 feet long weighing hundreds and sometimes thousands of pounds moving at hundreds of miles an hour. One modern missile would destroy a battleship stem to stern ... and throw the mechanical computers used to plot those guns out of calibration. View Quote 1. We are already shooting down mortar shells with rotary cannon and radar - a much smaller, faster moving target than a cruise missile. 2. Battleships were fairly often hit by 1000 lb plus missiles moving hundreds of miles an hour. They were called "armor piercing shells" "armor piercing aerial bombs", and "kamikazes", and one of them not only would not destroy a battleship from stem to stern - it usually didn't even take them out of the fight. |
|
[#30]
Quoted:
Japan location makes your opinion irrelevant. Japan navy is all submersible and they weren't submarines. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If they could make small rail guns then sure. No missiles would get close and you can't shoot down rail gun projectiles. That's why the Zumwalt class exists. No need for a BB. Yeah but it'll only have one or two rail guns at most. A ship with a whole battery of the things would be far cooler. I mean the whole reason the Navy exists is to make cool things, right? Where the fuck would you get the power to run a "whole battery" of railguns, and to what purpose would you put such a ship? "far cooler" isn't a requirements statement that I know of. Give me an effect -- what do you need to occur, and tell me why a DDG can't do it. Japan location makes your opinion irrelevant. Japan navy is all submersible and they weren't submarines. wow. You really don't know anything. |
|
[#31]
Quoted:
Weapons that always hit what you aim at are good, but they have an Achilles heel: you aren't always aiming them to the right place and sometimes a miss is more effective than a hit. Yeah, blowing up the ball bearing factory helped the war effort, but ravaging large sections of major cities told the krauts that saw it, that they were defeated. Since the common use of smart weapons we've had a poor track record of convincing enemy populations that they've been beaten. I don't think that's a coincidence. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
I beg to differ. Someone starts popping off nine 16" guns in my direction, I might get lucky. Someone plants an AGM-114 right where I am, I don't need luck, I need Jesus, Mohammed, the Ahura Mazda, Ishvara, Odin, and/or a healthy dose of enthusiastic ancestors, depending on my faith. Weapons that always hit what you aim at are good, but they have an Achilles heel: you aren't always aiming them to the right place and sometimes a miss is more effective than a hit. Yeah, blowing up the ball bearing factory helped the war effort, but ravaging large sections of major cities told the krauts that saw it, that they were defeated. Since the common use of smart weapons we've had a poor track record of convincing enemy populations that they've been beaten. I don't think that's a coincidence. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile You can argue all day long about whether purposeful killing of civilians is a good thing, but nobody cares, we don't make war like that. |
|
[#32]
Quoted: Japan location makes your opinion irrelevant. Japan navy is all submersible and they weren't submarines. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Where the fuck would you get the power to run a "whole battery" of railguns, and to what purpose would you put such a ship? "far cooler" isn't a requirements statement that I know of. Give me an effect -- what do you need to occur, and tell me why a DDG can't do it. Japan location makes your opinion irrelevant. Japan navy is all submersible and they weren't submarines. |
|
[#33]
Ignorant question time...have there ever been any studies on very large guns firing sabot rounds? Because I think about 16" smoothbore guns firing great big DU darts and get the weirdest boner... |
|
[#34]
Yes. This time put 16" rail guns on them. It can stay docked in Pearl Harbor and arc shells into Pyongyang.
Edit: Josh. I'm not serious here. |
|
[#35]
Quoted:
In past threads on the issue of battleships its been mentioned that we no longer have the capability to produce the guns, the rounds and there's no remaining powder so they'd have to spin up production on all of those I'm not a navy guy but maybe someone in the know could comment on that issue View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Because very few things that aren't nuclear can say f*** you with the authority of 16 inch guns. In past threads on the issue of battleships its been mentioned that we no longer have the capability to produce the guns, the rounds and there's no remaining powder so they'd have to spin up production on all of those I'm not a navy guy but maybe someone in the know could comment on that issue So.... it would be a jobs creation program to build one then! Shovel ready Battleship ready |
|
[#36]
|
|
[#37]
Quoted:
Ignorant question time...have there ever been any studies on very large guns firing sabot rounds? Because I think about 16" smoothbore guns firing great big DU darts and get the weirdest boner... View Quote There were two projects in the works for the 16" Mark VII on the Iowa's. One involved firing the 11" rounds from the "Atomic Annie" cannons in a Delrin sabot to get more range. The other involved using the cannon to fire a round that incorporated a solid fuel supersonic ramjet motor - IIRC that involved chunking a 200 pound payload out to 200 miles. I think both were motivated by the horrendous loses we took in carrier aviation in Korea and Vietnam. The thinking was that if we could service some of those targets without risking aircraft or crews, it would be more effective in the long run. Edit to add - the atomic battleship rounds were the same warhead used in the atomic annie gun, so if the saboted 11" rounds included the nuclear one, then the BB could fire a nuke to a larger distance. |
|
[#38]
It's official: I'm now completely convinced that these battleship threads are the product of some down-and-out battleship manufacturer that got hold of H&K's marketing handbook.
|
|
[#40]
Quoted:
There were two projects in the works for the 16" Mark VII on the Iowa's. One involved firing the 11" rounds from the "Atomic Annie" cannons in a Delrin sabot to get more range. The other involved using the cannon to fire a round that incorporated a solid fuel supersonic ramjet motor - IIRC that involved chunking a 200 pound payload out to 200 miles. I think both were motivated by the horrendous loses we took in carrier aviation in Korea and Vietnam. The thinking was that if we could service some of those targets without risking aircraft or crews, it would be more effective in the long run. Edit to add - the atomic battleship rounds were the same warhead used in the atomic annie gun, so if the saboted 11" rounds included the nuclear one, then the BB could fire a nuke to a larger distance. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Ignorant question time...have there ever been any studies on very large guns firing sabot rounds? Because I think about 16" smoothbore guns firing great big DU darts and get the weirdest boner... There were two projects in the works for the 16" Mark VII on the Iowa's. One involved firing the 11" rounds from the "Atomic Annie" cannons in a Delrin sabot to get more range. The other involved using the cannon to fire a round that incorporated a solid fuel supersonic ramjet motor - IIRC that involved chunking a 200 pound payload out to 200 miles. I think both were motivated by the horrendous loses we took in carrier aviation in Korea and Vietnam. The thinking was that if we could service some of those targets without risking aircraft or crews, it would be more effective in the long run. Edit to add - the atomic battleship rounds were the same warhead used in the atomic annie gun, so if the saboted 11" rounds included the nuclear one, then the BB could fire a nuke to a larger distance. Interesting, thanks. Of course, the railgun achieves higher velocities than any powder-based weapon can. But I still wonder about actual service life before major overhaul is needed...and what the max rate of fire is. All classified, I'm sure. |
|
[#42]
Unfortunately no. But think of it this way, weapons are just armor....at long range
|
|
[#43]
Modern torps don't give a shit how armoured you are. They just say, "Fuck your keel."
|
|
[#47]
No
Unless you're talking a large fast ship with 16 rail guns and a particle laser array for defence. |
|
[#48]
A little off subject but would it be possible to use a small torpedo to defend against a ship killing torpedo?
\If so then why not develop them into an active torpedo defense? If not then what would be the reason? |
|
[#49]
If you're talking about true, traditional, 16" gunned battleships.... Probably not.
However, I could see the use in a heavy gun armed cruiser. Say one, three-gun turret with 8" guns and a secondary 5" battery... Or even for sake of ammunition commonality make everything 5" guns. That would leave you a bunch of room for vertical launch cells and a helo pad on the stern. With all of the advancements in modern 5" ammunition, that would probably be pretty damn effective if you just needed to shell the piss out of something and you'd still have the room for a flexible, multi-role vessel. |
|
[#50]
Quoted:
I beg to differ. Someone starts popping off nine 16" guns in my direction, I might get lucky. Someone plants an AGM-114 right where I am, I don't need luck, I need Jesus, Mohammed, the Ahura Mazda, Ishvara, Odin, and/or a healthy dose of enthusiastic ancestors, depending on my faith. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes. Nothing puts the fear of god in the enemy like 16" guns raining down giant projectiles on their heads. I beg to differ. Someone starts popping off nine 16" guns in my direction, I might get lucky. Someone plants an AGM-114 right where I am, I don't need luck, I need Jesus, Mohammed, the Ahura Mazda, Ishvara, Odin, and/or a healthy dose of enthusiastic ancestors, depending on my faith. [Ricky Bobby] Help me Allah! Help me Jewish God!!! [Ricky Bobby] |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.