Battleship is not obsolete

Is the battleship obsolete?

  • Battleship is obsolete

    Votes: 33 50.8%

  • Battleship is not obsolete

    Votes: 28 43.1%

  • I don't know and I don't care

    Votes: 4 6.2%
  • Total voters
    65
[And how do you think, why battleships weren't used in 2003, when resistance from Iraqi side in general was heavier than in 1991?]

Simple, the last one was tied to a pier in Norfolk Virginia for the public to see and tour, since both of these wars are ground wars there's really no need for a battleship, besides bagdad is a little out of range for even the Wisconsin
 
We could be seeing a railgun and missile equipped ship soon. Engaging targets with the range of an aircraft carrier without risking multimillion dollar aircraft. From what I understand about railguns, a 32 megajoule model can hit with a little bit more force than a tomahawk hawk missile's impact and explosive warhead combined, due to it's sheer speed. And the projectile is much, much cheaper than a tomahawk missile because it's nothing more than a giant solid chunk of pointed metal. I see much potential in the railgun, it could make a nice addition to the world's arsenal and could make gun based artillery weapons far more potent.

Plus, look at that firetrail from the bullets they fire and tell me it's not awesome looking.
 
c/Commander said:
5", probably not, but the gun itself is pretty much a visual range weapon. The 16" is about twice as fast as a Harpoon at the muzzle, but is also twice the size, and has no onboard propulsion...so at its terminal end, I'd wager a CIWS against a 16"/50.
Click to expand...

Would you wager a CIWS against a 16"/50 if you were the target on the receiving end?
 
Czin said:
We could be seeing a railgun and missile equipped ship soon. Engaging targets with the range of an aircraft carrier without risking multimillion dollar aircraft. From what I understand about railguns, a 32 megajoule model can hit with a little bit more force than a tomahawk hawk missile's impact and explosive warhead combined, due to it's sheer speed. And the projectile is much, much cheaper than a tomahawk missile because it's nothing more than a giant solid chunk of pointed metal. I see much potential in the railgun, it could make a nice addition to the world's arsenal and could make gun based artillery weapons far more potent.

Plus, look at that firetrail from the bullets they fire and tell me it's not awesome looking.
Click to expand...


I think we should say screw it and just come out with the type 2 phaser, before the enemy gets ahold of the Enterprise ( NCC1701)

Here's a hint for everybody thinking a rail gun will work on a ship, a rail gun is kinda big and I doubt that it will fire in more than one direction at once, so disabling it is easy, simply overwhelm its ability to destroy stuff, using multiple ships and battle groups, once teh gun is overwhelmed open fire on the ship carrying it. if out current govt is unable to carry out that kind of attack, that is an easy fix, put non socialists in the congress and white house.
 
wolfen said:
I think we should say screw it and just come out with the type 2 phaser, before the enemy gets ahold of the Enterprise ( NCC1701)

Here's a hint for everybody thinking a rail gun will work on a ship, a rail gun is kinda big and I doubt that it will fire in more than one direction at once, so disabling it is easy, simply overwhelm its ability to destroy stuff, using multiple ships and battle groups, once teh gun is overwhelmed open fire on the ship carrying it. if out current govt is unable to carry out that kind of attack, that is an easy fix, put non socialists in the congress and white house.
Click to expand...
I disagree with both the Republican and Democratic party on most-everything.

Replace the more or less useless main gun of our cruisers (and destroyers if at all possible) with a railgun and the need for expensive tomahawk missiles diminishes greatly. You will have a gun that fires a projectile that does more damage than a tomahawk missile at a fraction of the price. You'd be hard pressed to find a better deal.
 
Disagreeing with the Congress of the United States now days is a smart thing, since they are becoming more and more socialist every day along with the entire govt.

But a rail gun on a ship may not be a very good idea since the ship only goes in one direction at a time, that's why they have really big guns that can turn.
here's a scenario for everybody I bet nobody has thought of yet. Take a Ages Cruiser, put a rail gun on it, and you still need as many guns that you can put on it on account of the fact that NOW, everybody in the world wants to sink that ship. And trust me you WILL be sunk before you fire a shot, you can track all eth ships you want, just remember one thing I was told back in 87, (there's 2 types of Naval Vessels, submarines......................and targets). That comment made by a friend of mine kinda made me nervous.
 
wolfen said:
Disagreeing with the Congress of the United States now days is a smart thing, since they are becoming more and more socialist every day along with the entire govt.

But a rail gun on a ship may not be a very good idea since the ship only goes in one direction at a time, that's why they have really big guns that can turn.
here's a scenario for everybody I bet nobody has thought of yet. Take a Ages Cruiser, put a rail gun on it, and you still need as many guns that you can put on it on account of the fact that NOW, everybody in the world wants to sink that ship. And trust me you WILL be sunk before you fire a shot, you can track all eth ships you want, just remember one thing I was told back in 87, (there's 2 types of Naval Vessels, submarines......................and targets). That comment made by a friend of mine kinda made me nervous.
Click to expand...
Mount them on all ships and put them on a turret, the main gun of most ships is pretty much just for show. Why not make it into an extremely deadly weapon?

I do like socialism in small doses, no more than what Sweden does for me. Of course, Sweden is a much smaller country populationwise than America, so it's plan may not work quite as well in the U.S. I would like my social security checks to be an amount I can actually live on in case something bad happens to my life's savings and my pension (You can never be too sure, remember, Paranoia is good, it makes you plan for everything. Though I have a good 49 years before this becomes my problem)

And not just one Aegis cruiser will have a rail gun, they will all have one, on a turret. Now lets see those tinpot dictators brown their pants as shells scream into their palaces at hypersonic velocities.
 
The Ticonderoga-class cruiser can't support the power requirements projected for a decent-size railgun. We will probably need to build a new class of ship for railgun mounting (though, possibly, the Zumwalt-class destroyers will have the power capabilities for the gun).
 
c/Commander said:
The Ticonderoga-class cruiser can't support the power requirements projected for a decent-size railgun. We will probably need to build a new class of ship for railgun mounting (though, possibly, the Zumwalt-class destroyers will have the power capabilities for the gun).
Click to expand...
That class was more or less axed by congress for some reason. We could take those nuclear cruisers instead.
 
Czin said:
That class was more or less axed by congress for some reason. We could take those nuclear cruisers instead.
Click to expand...

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...
 
c/Commander said:
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...
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
c/Commander said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Chukpike said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ya know I just noticed that your avatar is the Bainbridge, weer you on here? My dad was a plank owner
 
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?
 
Czin said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Chukpike said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top