Do Battleships have a futue? - Page 4

Az · March 21, 2003, 10:53

Quote:

The force equation is F=M*V^2

You must have some sort of different physics in the US.

Wraith · March 21, 2003, 11:06

--"You must have some sort of different physics in the US"

No, just posting before the coffee kicks in.

I was thinking of:
kinetic energy = ½ × mass × velocity^2

Wraith
Is there life before coffee? Yes, but not intelligent life

Illyrien · March 21, 2003, 11:24

how exactly are railguns supposed to hit anything beyound the horisont? railguns shot in straight lines, atleast i think they do.

Odin · March 21, 2003, 13:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Illyrien
how exactly are railguns supposed to hit anything beyound the horisont? railguns shot in straight lines, atleast i think they do.

Gravity will pull any projectile going in a straight line into a curved path, so the curvature of the earth is no problem.

yavoon · March 21, 2003, 13:44

trip thats just inaccurate. one when's the last war we had against a highly technological power? when's the last time one of our ships got sunk? this includes things that aren't carriers. it simply doesn't happen very often.

even if a nation had some limited anti ship ability it might be in the form of air to sea missiles. which of course we will supress any possibility u could get a plane up in the air neway.

its very common for the US to use simplistic effective things to get jobs done. a great example is the b-52. very old, very easy to shoot down. yet we still use it, and its still extremely effective.

and for jack, well I"m not responding to him. cuz he's just unintelligent.

Az · March 21, 2003, 13:47

Quote:

--"You must have some sort of different physics in the US"

No, just posting before the coffee kicks in.

I was thinking of:
kinetic energy = ½ × mass × velocity^2

Wraith
Is there life before coffee? Yes, but not intelligent life

No problem, I figured out that much.

Jack_www · March 21, 2003, 14:41

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon
trip thats just inaccurate. one when's the last war we had against a highly technological power? when's the last time one of our ships got sunk? this includes things that aren't carriers. it simply doesn't happen very often.

even if a nation had some limited anti ship ability it might be in the form of air to sea missiles. which of course we will supress any possibility u could get a plane up in the air neway.

its very common for the US to use simplistic effective things to get jobs done. a great example is the b-52. very old, very easy to shoot down. yet we still use it, and its still extremely effective.

and for jack, well I"m not responding to him. cuz he's just unintelligent.

Thanks for insulting me.
And for some facts, the battleships that were used in the first Gulf War where only there to make Iraq think they would make a invasion by sea, which they did not. They also launched curise missles at several targets, but again this can be done by small ships just as good. If Battleships were usefull, they would still have the things around.

Jack_www · March 21, 2003, 14:45

Yavoon, all heavy bombers are easy to shoot down, that is why the etheir get fighter escorts, or air defenses are taken out before they send them in. They also have a great deal of ECMs to protect them selfs from SAMs.

Az · March 21, 2003, 14:50

I find if funny that someone from the US that cannot spell properly has the balls to call someone else "unintelligent".

yavoon · March 21, 2003, 14:53

yes jack now use that same logic w/ the battleship.

and az, intelligence is not determined by spelling. If u think so, then that truly is depressing.

Az · March 21, 2003, 14:56

Yeah, well, I guess we dissagree.

Say, how old are you? I won't tell anyone, I promise.

Jack_www · March 21, 2003, 14:57

Well I am sure that you could protect a batteship, just as Carriers are protected. Also they got 18 inch armor that will protect it very well. But building a task force around a battleship? I think that would be a waste of money, men and ships.

Also in World War II, battleships really became escorts for Carriers, instead of the major offensive part of a navy.

Battleship where usefull in their day, when most nations who had a good navy had huge battleships, and they fought each other, but with Airplanes and such.
Now other ships can do all that a battleship can do, making their cost unjustified.

The only real way for battleships to come back if is other navies decide to build them. But that is unlikely to occur, when they dont even want to spend the money on Carriers.

yavoon · March 21, 2003, 15:00

not that u build a battlegroup aorund a battleship. its that you use it in situations where an enemies anti ship capabilities are suppressed. which is really not that hard considering the enemies we've faced recently.

Jack_www · March 21, 2003, 15:06

Also their are not much places a battleships can be used for supporting ground troops. Sure you could use the bombard shores before a landing, but this can be done with smaller ships and Carriers.

Also US strategy is to move as fast as they can deep inland, not fight for a little beach head as they did in World War II. Thus when your forces are 100 miles inland, a battleship wont be able to reach that far.

TheBirdMan · March 21, 2003, 15:06

My input will only make sense for OLD hardcore CTP-PBEM players (like Lung and Mobius): Ask St. Jon!!!!!

yavoon · March 21, 2003, 15:09

in iraq we are moving in fast on a nation that has but on finger on the sea in order to conquer it. we still fight lots of standoff battles, lots of defensive wars. it may not be a good way to fight a war but its wut we do.

to characterize the current campaign in iraq as how "we now use our military" is silly.

Jack_www · March 21, 2003, 15:16

if they did have sea forces their, carrier based planes and subs would most likely do most of the fighting.

yavoon · March 21, 2003, 15:27

yes battleships are floating artillery. a very cheap way to deliver a very strong punch up to 20 miles inland and what is actually very accurate. they can loiter and fire on demand. no need to scramble aircraft or launch 1.4 million dollar tamahawks.

and yes battleships would not be shooting at other ships. but certainly u could load other things on battleships if u want. anti ship missiles perhaps.

yavoon · March 21, 2003, 15:33

also I think its important that while I think america should still have/use battleships. I am not purely talking about their usefulness to america, with its 12 carrier battlegroups.

raghar · March 21, 2003, 16:18

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon
yes battleships are floating artillery. a very cheap way to deliver a very strong punch up to 20 miles inland and .

a 130mm AK-130 multipurpose twin-barrel gun supplied by the Ametist Design Bureau, Izumrud JSC and the Tula Engineering Plant. The main components of the artillery system are a computer-based control system with a multi-band radar, television and optical target sighting, and a gun mount with a turret-mounted Kondensor optical sighting unit. The gun can be operated under fully automatic remote control interfaced to the radar control system, under autonomous control from the sighting unit or can be laid manually. Range is over 22km and maximum rate of fire is 35 rounds/min.

With higher caliber and rocked propeled projectile... it could be really much more.
Batleships with 2 nuclear reactors and electrothermal system or pure electromagnetic system could have much higher range.

Ned · March 21, 2003, 16:42

Quote:

Originally posted by raghar

a 130mm AK-130 multipurpose twin-barrel gun supplied by the Ametist Design Bureau, Izumrud JSC and the Tula Engineering Plant. The main components of the artillery system are a computer-based control system with a multi-band radar, television and optical target sighting, and a gun mount with a turret-mounted Kondensor optical sighting unit. The gun can be operated under fully automatic remote control interfaced to the radar control system, under autonomous control from the sighting unit or can be laid manually. Range is over 22km and maximum rate of fire is 35 rounds/min.

With higher caliber and rocked propeled projectile... it could be really much more.
Batleships with 2 nuclear reactors and electrothermal system or pure electromagnetic system could have much higher range.

Battleships could be made very effective if they could fire shells 300 miles with GPS guidance. I didn't read all of the railgun series of posts before, but I think railguns might be able to do this.

But unless they get this capability, they are virtually useless (except as a missle platform) and very expensive to maintain.

yavoon · March 21, 2003, 16:52

a lot of ur battleship maintenance cost is related to the fact that we have abandoned the battlesihp and the infrastructure to keep it running. to where when it breaks down we simply dont know where to get parts from.

if we hadn't have done that battleships as very heavy floating artillery aren't prohibitive in any way.

Kramerman · March 21, 2003, 16:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned

Battleships could be made very effective if they could fire shells 300 miles with GPS guidance. I didn't read all of the railgun series of posts before, but I think railguns might be able to do this.

But unless they get this capability, they are virtually useless (except as a missle platform) and very expensive to maintain.

'

one rail gun in the works can fire a projectile (potentially guided) at mach 10 (way faster than chemical propellants) and over 500 miles.