Do Battleships have a futue? - Page 2

raghar · March 20, 2003, 20:05

Imagine ship with gun that could fire to orbit. Name its class Battleship and you could see future.
Stop thinking about normal chemical guns...
BTW Russian ships have 130 mm autofire guns so... it clearly shows that Batleships are uderdeveloped concept. At least now.

Spiffor · March 20, 2003, 20:57

The future is the submarine carrier

Odin · March 20, 2003, 22:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
The future is the submarine carrier

Whats that, as sub that carries planes or a ship that carries subs.

Urban Ranger · March 20, 2003, 23:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
But carriers do what no other ship can, carry jets. If you could always depend on land airbases all over the world, then and only then would carriers be obsolete.

Most aeroplanes have became missile launching platforms. So you can do away with the planes and just launch them missiles.

Ned · March 20, 2003, 23:05

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

What range of ASM's are we talking here? The bigger ship launched Soviet models had ranges of a little of 300 miles, and for the most part, you trade range for payload. Launching a wave of two hundred close enough to simultanously would take about 15 good size launch platforms. (AEGIS cruiser firing TASM's, etc.) That's more firepower concentrated in a surface battle group than any navy has, and it also requires additional ships for ASW and FAD duties.

It would financially break most countries and take them years before they could put together a blue water navy like that.

What about 10 B52s?

Ned · March 20, 2003, 23:06

I think the B52 remains the ultimate weapon, far more powerful than any ship.

Master Zen · March 21, 2003, 00:00

They can be shot down rather easily, unlike ships...

During the Rolling Thunder campaign in Vietnam, an average of 3 B-52s were shot down per day. That was 1972...

Sarxis · March 21, 2003, 00:27

Does the US even have any Battleships still in service?

Zylka · March 21, 2003, 00:40

I never knew that shortsighted military thinking was rampant on poly, of all places

With the new era of flight being taken hold of by the Zeppelin-Vehicle, we have a perfect example of why modern warfare and seafaring is to take to the skies. Todays battleships will retain their turrets, only to be refitted with massive and impressive gas balloons which allows them to rise to a phenomenal ceiling of 1500 feet! From there, bombardment of any unruly Siam province comes with ease, and not even the Red Baron himself can reach the height to defend

Skanky Burns · March 21, 2003, 00:42

The world has no ceiling.

PLATO · March 21, 2003, 01:53

Battleship plans of the 1980's included removing the aft turrent and installing a Harrier Hanger and launch pad. Compliment was to be 10 to 12 planes.

Also, No platform on the seas today can take even a fraction of the damage a battleship could. No one manufactures that kind of Armour anymore.

The idea today is to avoid being hit by projecting protective force outwards and using point defense weapons for whatever gets through. The lack of armour allows more speed which also fits into the modern concept of warfare.

The Battleship may oneday rise again if force projection and point defense start to be overwhelmed by new attack weapons.

Jack_www · March 21, 2003, 02:04

well carriers have replaced Battleships as the major ship in terms of sea power. Battleships are no longer usefull, and other ships can do what it can do just as good with less men and less money.

Carriers are way more power full then a battleship and can hit targets at greator distance and can be moved to almost anywhere around the world and their planes are bigger then some nations airforce.

yavoon · March 21, 2003, 02:06

jack sorry but ur just wrong. and probably unintelligent too

Berzerker · March 21, 2003, 02:11

Plato, the Japanese modified a couple of BB's in WW2 replacing one end of the ships armament with a shorter flight deck. Strange looking things, but I guess they worked...

Berzerker · March 21, 2003, 02:14

Who let the troll in?

PLATO · March 21, 2003, 02:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
Plato, the Japanese modified a couple of BB's in WW2 replacing one end of the ships armament with a shorter flight deck. Strange looking things, but I guess they worked...

If I remember my history correctly, both the Germans and the Japanese changed production of battleships to carriers after the hulls were complete

Berzerker · March 21, 2003, 02:21

these were BB's with normal turrets on one end and a deck on the other.

Jack_www · March 21, 2003, 02:21

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon
jack sorry but ur just wrong. and probably unintelligent too

then explain to me how I am wrong then.

yavoon · March 21, 2003, 02:29

battleships are far cheaper than ne carrier battle group(by powers of 10). battleships can provide sustained mobile artillery bombardment up to 20 miles in shore, at very low cost.

which is really their new role, the ones we didn't decommision were very effective in vietnam and were quite feared weapons.

if you had all the money in the world sure you could launch a missile at everything. or risk a 20 million dollar plane flying over newhere. but a battleship is simply a very practical tool of the US military similar to the b 52.

that when we have superiority it provides us a great tool to "pound" the enemy with.

Jack_www · March 21, 2003, 02:29

Well the turing point for battleships and carriers came with the Attack on Pearl Harbor, the Japanese proved that carriers could be very effective. Basiclly all through out WWII carriers begain to get more improtance, and their were times were battles between battleship almost begun, but did not really.

yavoon · March 21, 2003, 02:33

nice random post jack. cuz of course everyone is trying to say that battleships are still used for sea superiority.

or wait, maybe no1 was saying that and u just decided to say something random.

Jack_www · March 21, 2003, 02:36

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon
battleships are far cheaper than ne carrier battle group(by powers of 10). battleships can provide sustained mobile artillery bombardment up to 20 miles in shore, at very low cost.

which is really their new role, the ones we didn't decommision were very effective in vietnam and were quite feared weapons.

if you had all the money in the world sure you could launch a missile at everything. or risk a 20 million dollar plane flying over newhere. but a battleship is simply a very practical tool of the US military similar to the b 52.

that when we have superiority it provides us a great tool to "pound" the enemy with.

curise missles and fighter bombers can do this much better then an battle ship at far great distances. Carrier has much more firepower then a battleship.

Jack_www · March 21, 2003, 02:38

Dont get me wrong I do like Battleships yavoon, and used to think that they were the best ship out their, but the more I look at carriers the more I was convinced that carriers are way better.

yavoon · March 21, 2003, 02:40

yes but at many fold the cost. ur gna fire a 1.4 million dollar tamahawk when u can bombard ppl for god knows how long for the same cost?

battleships have their place, and are of use. just cuz something like the carrier battlegroup that costs such a ridiculous amt of money that only america has any(france's mini carrier dont count). is hardly an indicator that the battleship has become useless.

yavoon · March 21, 2003, 02:41

seriously jack, between ur grammar and ur completely offtopic arguing. I dont think ur a real person.

Spiffor · March 21, 2003, 02:44

Yavoon :
Your argument might look more solid if you wrote "you" instead of "u". Especially the bit about the grammar

yavoon · March 21, 2003, 02:53

why do u not understand shorthand? I wasn't saying that having bad grammar makes ur argument weaker(on the internet).

I said that his grammar combined w/ his offtopic arguing made me think he wasn't real.

Jon Shafer · March 21, 2003, 02:54

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon
yes but at many fold the cost. ur gna fire a 1.4 million dollar tamahawk when u can bombard ppl for god knows how long for the same cost?

Because your big ship will get sunk. Where does that leave you then?

yavoon · March 21, 2003, 02:55

there are many many situations where we could use battleships w/o fear of them being sunk.

Spiffor · March 21, 2003, 02:59

In what situations except colonial warfare ?