What do you think is the baddest ass piece of military hardware? - Page 18

Colon™ · January 10, 2004, 17:11

I always like those humongous battleships like the Yamato class.

TCO · January 10, 2004, 17:25

Iowa clazz kix azz.

TCO · January 10, 2004, 17:26

show a pic of it's guns firing, please. and show the m-14.

Colon™ · January 10, 2004, 17:26

Yes, but they're a bit smaller so I think the Yamato rules.

TCO · January 10, 2004, 17:29

yeah..but the Iowa is operated by americans. So, it rules. See God loves us. that is the way it iz.

Serb · January 10, 2004, 17:36

Kirov rulezzz

Verto · January 10, 2004, 17:37

C-5 Galaxy, midair refueling.

Colon™ · January 10, 2004, 17:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Serb
Kirov rulezzz

OMG that thing is tiny! Does it even have guns?!

Verto · January 10, 2004, 17:40

And here's the CVX, the replacement for the current Nimitz Carriers:

TCO · January 10, 2004, 17:41

kirov is a very heavy cruiser. Cool ship.

Serb · January 10, 2004, 17:42

Tu-160 kick ass

Serb · January 10, 2004, 17:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Colon

OMG that thing is tiny! Does it even have guns?!

Tiny?
Curerntly it's the largest surface warship on this planet. It has shitload of weaponry, including guns of course.

Verto · January 10, 2004, 17:46

First post to make sense, Serb. A bit antiquated, but still the biggest bomber in the world, IIRC.

TCO · January 10, 2004, 17:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Serb

Tiny?
Curerntly it's the largest surface warship on this planet. It has shitload of weaponry, including guns of course.

I thought it was no longer active itslef.

Colon™ · January 10, 2004, 17:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Serb

Tiny?
Curerntly it's the largest surface warship on this planet. It has shitload of weaponry, including guns of course.

Tiny guns then.

Verto · January 10, 2004, 17:50

Just for TCO:

Serb · January 10, 2004, 17:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Colon

Tiny guns then.

2 automatic 130mm. Don't remeber rate of fire. But Kirov it's a heavy nuclear missile cruiser. Its main armament is cruise missiles.

Serb · January 10, 2004, 17:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Verto
First post to make sense, Serb. A bit antiquated, but still the biggest bomber in the world, IIRC.

Antiquated?

I heard here, that Yanks want to use their B-52 for next 40 years or so.
You remeber correctly, it is the biggest bomber.

Colon™ · January 10, 2004, 17:57

I can't see them on that picture, unlike those of the Yamato. So they're tiny.

Verto · January 10, 2004, 18:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Serb

Antiquated?

I heard here, that Yanks want to use their B-52 for next 40 years or so.
You remeber correctly, it is the biggest bomber.

I said a 'bit', meaning it is already twenty years old.

Patroklos · January 10, 2004, 18:04

Munitions, propellent, warheads, accuracy, etc.. make big guns no longer needed.

Because of the fact that most current warships are designed around the weapon system, instead of before where the weapons were designed around the ship, one hit from a 5 inch will remove most warships from combat if not sink it. The current weapon systems pretty much require everything to work or they are useless.

Colon™ · January 10, 2004, 18:07

That may be, but modern guns look dull. Back then they were nifty.

Verto · January 10, 2004, 18:09

Quote:

I heard here, that Yanks want to use their B-52 for next 40 years or so.

And yes, it is expected the B-52 will be able to remain in active service until about 2040, with the bombers being upgraded, re-engined, etc around 2020.

Patroklos · January 10, 2004, 18:10

see one fire on automatic, something like 30 5inch rounds a minite, and tell me that.

I do think big guns are cool.

Serb · January 10, 2004, 18:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Colon
I can't see them on that picture, unlike those of the Yamato. So they're tiny.

And? Kirov would disable/destroy Yamato with its cruise missiles from absolutely safe distance of 600 km. Guns sucks, missiles rulezzz
Kirov fires SS-N-19 "Shipwreck"

Patroklos · January 10, 2004, 18:19

600km? Not by iteself, would need the target illuminated by something else. Is that even possible with a Shipwreck missile.

I love some of the NATO designators for Russian equipment. My favorite was "Nuclear Kitchen."

Serb · January 10, 2004, 18:27

The target illuminated from satellite.

Serb · January 10, 2004, 18:36

Another "bye-bye uncle Sam's boat" babe.

SS-N-22 "SunBurn"

Patroklos · January 10, 2004, 18:49

Is that why they still used Bear's to fing the Atlantic convoys? Russian satelites were not advanced enough to transmit target data like that, and ours have only been able to for about 10 years.

Sunburns are cool but unpractical. It takes an entire destroyer sized ship to carry one and has no range, burns all its fuel trying to go so fast. So basically the ship carrying it would be dead long before the weapon became useful. However, if hidden along coast lines good bye whoever is on the recieving end.

The official countermeasure listed for this is "No countermeasure" just too fast. Supposed to be a carrier buster, though would be interesting to see it hit a destroyer. As far as I know only China has these deployed as sea going assets.

Mordoch · January 10, 2004, 19:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Serb
2) Does your regulations allow you to use untested/just modified equipment in rescue missions that already extremly dangerous?

Absolutely in life or death situations. For example in 1939 with a rather similar situation involving the US.

Quote:

Each one of the crewmembers was aware that the general attitude was if a submarine went down, the crew was as good as lost. In the entire history of the submarines, no rescue attempts over 20 feet had been successful. At 243 it would be virtually impossible.

Thankfully for the members of the Squalus, a naval officer (who was an ex-submarine commander) Charles “Swede” Momsen had thought up, designed and built a “rescue chamber” that had never been tested during an actual emergency.

It would seem that Momsen and the crew of the Squalus were to be plagued by bad luck. After the buoy marker had been found and a telephone connection made to the Squalus, the line broke leaving the only link to the boat gone. The loss of telecommunications was bad enough but the buoy had been the only marker showing exactly where the Squalus was located. As a storm built up and the submarine’s location lost, the navy sent in other boats to use grappler and drag the bottom. It was at this time the rescuers found out just how full of debris and boulders the area around the Squalus was...

For the survivors, the hours were spent in complete darkness; bone chilling cold, soggy blankets and the knowledge that there had never been a successful rescue of any seamen from a sunken submarine. They were also aware that the devise that everyone was depending on to bring them to the surface had only been tested under controlled circumstances and had never been used in an actual rescue.

A reporter on the scene who described Momsen’s rescue chamber compared it to an oversized tumbler that had been turned upside down. A tumbler that would have to make four trips down to the Squalus before all 33 men could be brought up. During each trip two divers would have to go down with the rescue chamber, seal it to the escape hatch of the sub and then transfer 9 men into it for the long trip to the surface.

http://ny.essortment.com/sinkingresueus_rjqy.htm

All of the 33 surviving members of the Squalus were succesfully rescued. The Squalus was eventually salvaged, recommissioned as the Sailfish, and had a successful career during WW2.