|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Tarminic
Black Flame Industries
|
Posted - 2007.08.16 14:21:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Tarminic on 16/08/2007 14:26:08
Originally by: Teron D'Amun
Originally by: Rodj Blake The Royal Navy's newest warship has just completed it's first sea trial, and the results look encouraging.
Clicky
those ships should go along nicely with Germany's newest and most advanced submarine
While both of those are cool, nothing (except for railguns, or perhaps velociraptors) is as awesome as the mighty F-22. Now if only they didn't cost 130 million each.
EDIT:
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich In WW2 America built an entire navy in a month. I'm sure other people could do it too
Not entirely accurate - we already had our aircraft carriers and support ships, Pearl Harbor was a devastating attack against our battleships but the balance of naval power had already shifted toward the Aircraft Carrier.
Quote: And yes, the US is currently building a new destroyer. I don't know the exact stats on it but I can say it's about as ugly as our stealth fighters and their working on a new age propulsion system for it that's gonna make it rocket across the water like none other. That's about all I learned when they were showing a little about it in town.
Ooooh, I heard about it too - something about it having a very low radar signature to the point of being a stealth ship of sorts. I also heard later models will be including military-grade railguns. ------------ Whiners - Unite! Tarminic - 26 Million SP in Forum Warfare. |
Tarminic
Black Flame Industries
|
Posted - 2007.08.16 14:28:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Mc Gyver
I honestly think that will be the last high tech piloted military plane we make.
I think it would be better for us to go more towards UAV's...
Very true - the navy is already working on highly-intelligent, near-autonomous UAVs simply because the agility of military fighters is quickly outstripping the ability for pilots to withstand the strain it puts on their bodies. There was a really cool Popular Science article about it not too long ago... ------------ Whiners - Unite! Tarminic - 26 Million SP in Forum Warfare. |
Tarminic
Black Flame Industries
|
Posted - 2007.08.16 14:33:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Tarminic on 16/08/2007 14:33:49
Originally by: Syrin
Originally by: Tarminic
Originally by: Mc Gyver
I honestly think that will be the last high tech piloted military plane we make.
I think it would be better for us to go more towards UAV's...
Very true - the navy is already working on highly-intelligent, near-autonomous UAVs simply because the agility of military fighters is quickly outstripping the ability for pilots to withstand the strain it puts on their bodies. There was a really cool Popular Science article about it not too long ago...
A few less friendly fire incidents maybe by certain air forces pilots.
If I remember correctly, the majority of friendly fire incidents. I think you're referring to the incident during the First Gulf War - a British tank column was moving through an area the US commanders had mistakenly designated as a "killbox," where anything inside was considered hostile and open to attacks of opportunity. This was caused by miscommunication at higher levels, which means automated drones would have still followed orders to blow up anything they spotted. EDIT: Though I'm no expert, so feel free to disagree. ------------ Whiners - Unite! Tarminic - 26 Million SP in Forum Warfare. |
Tarminic
Black Flame Industries
|
Posted - 2007.08.17 03:22:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Royaldo
Quote: That won't last forever, so we need you guys to step up to the plate! LOL France & Australia as well... It wouldn't hurt if the Scandinavian countries could pitch in with more stuff too...
why should we help you? if wouldnt hurt you if we helped you, but whats in it for us?
Simple - military and diplomatic economy of scale. The US and Europe can do together what might not be possible for either the US or Europe to do alone. Granted, most of the time our interests won't coincide that well, but cooperation can't us any harm.
And we all saw where a policy of unilateralism has gotten us. ------------ Whiners - Unite! Tarminic - 26 Million SP in Forum Warfare. |
Tarminic
Black Flame Industries
|
Posted - 2007.08.17 19:09:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Tarminic on 17/08/2007 19:10:32
Originally by: smashsmash why do people like the idea of railguns so much?
What isn't appealing about using a massive electrical current to propel a solid-metal projectile with such force the sheer impact is more effective than a cruise missile?
Originally by: Micheal DietrichI may be wrong but I thought a .50 sniper rifle with uranium rounds were capable of that. The only thing I know of rail guns is that they're supposed to have very little or none at all recoil.[/quote
A .50 with the right ammunition can punch a hole through an engine block or pretty much any unarmored or lightly-armored vehicle. I think that something like an APC or Tank would be able to repel it though. And yes, another nicety is that they have no recoil. ------------ Whiners - Unite! Tarminic - 26 Million SP in Forum Warfare. |
Tarminic
Black Flame Industries
|
Posted - 2007.08.17 19:53:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Icheckjitamarketlol
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich The only thing I know of rail guns is that they're supposed to have very little or none at all recoil.
They'd actually have massive recoil, I think. The current versions are huge weapons that require a nuclear reactor to power, and can in theory only be fitted to ships or land-based turrets.
Nope, no recoil at all on railguns. They suffer from two major problems right now - the require such a large power source that it's difficult to mount large ones on anything other than a static defense or a nuclear-powered ship, and the conductive rails melt after each round is fired due to the massive current. The ones the navy is building are scaled-down versions that will operate off of smaller generators on patrol ships in addition to large guns mounted on destroyers. They could also be used to very effectively take down missiles due to the extreme muzzle velocity. ------------ Whiners - Unite! Tarminic - 26 Million SP in Forum Warfare. |
Tarminic
Black Flame Industries
|
Posted - 2007.08.19 21:17:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Mercurye
All this stuff about "We have a nice ship, costed us some billions, it will aid our defenses!" are people where you can almost see the testosterone coming out of their eyes
Warships and wars should stay in games...
If everyone thought that way, it would be true. Unfortunately I don't think that will ever happen...it's human nature. ------------ Whiners - Unite! Tarminic - 26 Million SP in Forum Warfare. |
Tarminic
Black Flame Industries
|
Posted - 2007.08.20 21:35:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Patch86 Ironically enough, in theory new military technology could be a money saver in the future.
If you consider that this is a very small ship that can do the work of several old-tech much larger ships, that means that it'll need to be staffed by less crew, have less bits that need replacing, less fuel being burned, etc. etc. etc...
Think, if every ship in the Royal Navy was replaced with the equivalent in fire power of these little guys, that'd be a lot of money being saved.
In theory...
Maintenance costs are also a concern - a lot of older Naval vessels cost more to maintain due to their design and the components used. Newer ships tend to be lower-cost not just due to their (lack of) age but also because of design revisions and technological improvements. ------------ Whiners - Unite! Tarminic - 26 Million SP in Forum Warfare. |
Tarminic
Black Flame Industries
|
Posted - 2007.08.21 17:10:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich
Originally by: Darteis Elosia
What does this "passive naval decoy" system do?
scales the ships signature down tomake it look like a fishing boat on radar/sonar
Not to mention reducing missile damage! ------------ Whiners - Unite! Tarminic - 26 Million SP in Forum Warfare. |
|
|
|