EVE Search - Building Britains Ultimate Warship

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

Building Britains Ultimate Warship

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Florio Miniature Giant Space Hamsters	Posted - 2010.07.05 22:10:00 - [31] Originally by: Sidus Isaacs A gigantic waste of resources to build these ships really. makes me sad. why's that? are you under the impression we live in a nice safe world?
Saxton Hale	Posted - 2010.07.06 15:22:00 - [32] Are you under the impression that terrorists have aircraft carriers?
Hatherley	Posted - 2010.07.06 16:28:00 - [33] I was under the impression Argentina still wants the Falklands. That is where Aircraft Carriers come in.
Vogue Skynet Nexus	Posted - 2010.07.06 16:31:00 - [34] Edited by: Vogue on 06/07/2010 16:32:02 The latest sabre rattling by Argintina over the falklands is by its corrupt leader who should better spend her time creating true law and order for its masses including property law for the poor. Than diverting attention from her own incompetance to the Brtish bogeyman and the Falklands. In the past long gone Argintina used to be a wealthy country but this was ruined by leaders who were economic idiots. .................................................. Cylon cultural victor!
Sazkyen State War Academy	Posted - 2010.07.06 16:46:00 - [35] Originally by: Vak'ran Link is moot, channel 4 doesnt like to share with the rest of the world. Apparently, I also seem to be living in an inferior country. What a damn shame. -SIG- Ship comparison
Rayce Farelle	Posted - 2010.07.07 14:43:00 - [36] If we (Britain) want to stay as a forefront naval power, then we definitly need these upgrades. The current aircraft carriers we have ( if you can call them that, they were actually designed and built to be a 6000t guided missile, helicopter escort cruiser.) are truly obsolete and has been for the last 20 years. Without the introduction of the Astute SSBN, Daring (Type 45) Class Destroyer and Queen Elizabeth class CV ( of which i still have the feeling at least 1 will be cancelled) we would be a second rate naval power. Without these additions, we are rated behind, USA, Russia, France, Spain, Brazil, Italy, India, China and Pakistan. ( all of which have dedicated Aircraft carriers, and have a higher quality/country size/importance) than Britain. Personally i would like to see the idea of the Cruiser (maybe even teh Battleship come back to the fleet- maybe its a bit expensive per unit, per capability) but currently no navy apart from a few minor exceptions, (US Ticonderoga Class, and i think the italian's might have a modern cruiser) have anything to go in between the screens and tehe key vessels in the task force. ( I know that alot of the smaller navies, have cruisers, but they tend to use them as their flagships to due the need of a small naval force and/or budget limitations) Thats just my 2 pence
Vogue Skynet Nexus	Posted - 2010.07.07 15:16:00 - [37] wiki copy pasta:- Design The vessels will displace approximately 65,600 tonnes each,[3] over three times the displacement of the current Invincible class. They will be the largest warships ever built in the UK and the most capable aircraft carriers outside of the U.S. Navy.[19] Nothing of the scale has been proposed for the Royal Navy since the cancelled 1960s CVA-01 programme. Giving evidence to the House of Commons Defence Committee, the First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Alan West explained that interoperability with the United States Navy was a factor in deciding of the size of the carriers as the firepower of the carrier's airwing: [for a] deep strike package, we have done ...quite detailed calculations and we have come out with the figure of 36 joint strike fighters ...that is the thing that has made us arrive at that size of deck and that size of ship, to enable that to happen. I have talked with the CNO (Chief of Naval Operations) in America. He is very keen for us to get these because he sees us slotting in with his carrier groups. He really wants us to have these, but he wants us to have the same sort of clout as one of their carriers. The design features two small island structures, one devoted to ship navigation, and the other to air operations. This allows optimal placement of bridges for both tasks: navigation calls for a bridge placed forward (as on the Charles De Gaulle), while air operations are made easier with a bridge placed abaft (as seen on the US Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier). Two deck lifts will be used, both on the starboard side. .................................................. Cylon cultural victor!
Rouge Drone	Posted - 2010.07.07 16:06:00 - [38] If you ask me we are long overdue for a new warspite.
Rayce Farelle	Posted - 2010.07.07 16:19:00 - [39] To be honest, i did not state that they were going to be pants or that we didnt need them. All i said was that currently, our navy is second rate for a power of our size and magnitude. Secondly, yes i can perfectly understand why we have gone for a design similar to the US Carriers, and both the Nimitz and Enterprise Class (possibly need correction there) have done spendid service compared to the other conventionally european design, with a much more pronoced ramp , and a higher profile. ( Charles de Gaulle, and Principe de Asturias immediatly spring to mind. They will provide a better operational coverage for the UK and its various task forces. However, personally i believe that the idea that the Amercian CNO encouraged a design like this to fit in better with their carrier groups is bull. TBH, our small helicopter carriers (becasue thats what they are really tbh) act as Escort Carriers, and although the idea of Escort Carriers is a bit WW2, it is still a viable tactic if you have the sufficient ASuW, and AAW, to cover said CVLs. To be honest, it is all down to the quality and eputation, on said designs, not about the general tactics employed to choose a single desing over the other, as the type of warfare is so expansive nowadays
Viktor Fyretracker Caldari Fyretracker Heavy Industries	Posted - 2010.07.07 16:56:00 - [40] never mind that a single US carrier costs 4.5 billion for a Nimitz class(based on Wiki which was using y2000 dollars). i doubt the british people would want the royal navy to blow that much on one boat. that said the US carriers are very adaptable boats, they have even served peaceful roles in Katrina and the Haiti quake as a temp landing field and fresh water production(pretty much unlimited desalination when you are driving around a nuclear reactor).
Arianhod Red Dwarf Mining Corporation space weaponry and trade	Posted - 2010.07.07 17:32:00 - [41] Problem is that the British carriers aren't nuclear powered... something about it halving the production and maintanence costs. Haruhiists - Overloading Out of Pod discussions since 2007. Haruhiists - Redeclaring open warfare on Out of Pod since 2010.
Dr Shameless Majesta Empire	Posted - 2010.07.07 19:32:00 - [42] why spend so much money on ship that can be so easily sunk with a weapon that costs a mere fraction of its price :) http://www.missilethreat.com/cruise/id.103/cruise_detail.asp
Intense Thinker Minmatar	Posted - 2010.07.07 19:36:00 - [43] Originally by: Dr Shameless why spend so much money on ship that can be so easily sunk with a weapon that costs a mere fraction of its price :) http://www.missilethreat.com/cruise/id.103/cruise_detail.asp Can't speak for the tea swillers' ships but American ships can easily engage a missile that primative Originally by: captain foivos It's not griefing, it's surprise PvP.
Hatherley	Posted - 2010.07.07 19:39:00 - [44] Originally by: Dr Shameless why spend so much money on ship that can be so easily sunk with a weapon that costs a mere fraction of its price :) http://www.missilethreat.com/cruise/id.103/cruise_detail.asp that's what the type 45 destroyers are for, and the goalkeeper ciws on the QE class carriers. So no, that cruise missile is not going to hit it's mark, at all.
Arianhod Red Dwarf Mining Corporation space weaponry and trade	Posted - 2010.07.07 19:54:00 - [45] Originally by: Intense Thinker Originally by: Dr Shameless why spend so much money on ship that can be so easily sunk with a weapon that costs a mere fraction of its price :) http://www.missilethreat.com/cruise/id.103/cruise_detail.asp Can't speak for the tea swillers' ships but American ships can easily engage a missile that primative The ops video is about our new class of warship desighned to sink 36 of these at a time. As its got the best antimissile systems on the planet (CCP note the RN has fixed defenders) I think I should propose HMS Macross to the Navy to counter the Burger-scoffing Navy Haruhiists - Overloading Out of Pod discussions since 2007. Haruhiists - Redeclaring open warfare on Out of Pod since 2010.
Intense Thinker Minmatar	Posted - 2010.07.07 20:18:00 - [46] Originally by: Arianhod Originally by: Intense Thinker Originally by: Dr Shameless why spend so much money on ship that can be so easily sunk with a weapon that costs a mere fraction of its price :) http://www.missilethreat.com/cruise/id.103/cruise_detail.asp Can't speak for the tea swillers' ships but American ships can easily engage a missile that primative The ops video is about our new class of warship desighned to sink 36 of these at a time. As its got the best antimissile systems on the planet (CCP note the RN has fixed defenders) I think I should propose HMS Macross to the Navy to counter the Burger-scoffing Navy Torpedoes ftw Wire guided, baby!
Florio Miniature Giant Space Hamsters	Posted - 2010.07.08 00:07:00 - [47] Originally by: Saxton Hale Are you under the impression that terrorists have aircraft carriers? Potential hostiles have access to missiles and aircraft.
Iasius Skynet Nexus	Posted - 2010.07.08 00:15:00 - [48] Terrorists best chance of doing damage to militery ships is when they are in port. al-Qaeda bombed USS Cole in Yemini port of Aden. I assume since then the USN, Royal Navy and others are a lot more careful with their ships in foreign ports. Its the whole terrorist problem of civilians using boats, vans, etc as cover for suicide bombings. USS Cole Bombing Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes. ~Saint
Gneeznow Minmatar Ship spinners inc	Posted - 2010.07.08 07:57:00 - [49] I tried to watch the OP's link but it was just 10 minutes of adverts then I just turned it off and gave up.
General D'Sorder Caldari StarHunt R.A.G.E	Posted - 2010.07.08 14:20:00 - [50] Originally by: Lance Fighter Edited by: Lance Fighter on 04/07/2010 20:28:03 hint: no matter how awesome they think it is, a carrier can still blow the ** out of them from 100km+ away. edit: since when has ** been censored again? and oh, an anti-air destroyer? meh any well equipped task force has enough alternatives anyway The new anti-air system being installed will, assuming the ship is moored in the Thames, will detect a missile fired from beyond Land's End (260 Miles)and identify the target type before it reaches Portsmouth (70 miles). Try to look unimportant... They may be low on ammo!!
General D'Sorder Caldari StarHunt R.A.G.E	Posted - 2010.07.08 14:25:00 - [51] Originally by: Intense Thinker Originally by: Arianhod Originally by: Intense Thinker Originally by: Dr Shameless why spend so much money on ship that can be so easily sunk with a weapon that costs a mere fraction of its price :) http://www.missilethreat.com/cruise/id.103/cruise_detail.asp Can't speak for the tea swillers' ships but American ships can easily engage a missile that primative The ops video is about our new class of warship desighned to sink 36 of these at a time. As its got the best antimissile systems on the planet (CCP note the RN has fixed defenders) I think I should propose HMS Macross to the Navy to counter the Burger-scoffing Navy Torpedoes ftw Wire guided, baby! Spearfish - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spearfish_torpedo Try to look unimportant... They may be low on ammo!!
Destruct0	Posted - 2010.07.08 17:21:00 - [52] Didnt I read somewhere about the new railgun weapons the US is fitting on their destroyer and cruiser class ships? The guns than can shoot almost 250 miles accurately?
Hatherley	Posted - 2010.07.08 17:28:00 - [53] Originally by: Destruct0 Didnt I read somewhere about the new railgun weapons the US is fitting on their destroyer and cruiser class ships? The guns than can shoot almost 250 miles accurately? only in your dreams :P
Destruct0	Posted - 2010.07.08 17:34:00 - [54] Originally by: Hatherley Originally by: Destruct0 Didnt I read somewhere about the new railgun weapons the US is fitting on their destroyer and cruiser class ships? The guns than can shoot almost 250 miles accurately? only in your dreams :P No no, I aint kidding, here --> Linkage
Hatherley	Posted - 2010.07.08 17:42:00 - [55] Edited by: Hatherley on 08/07/2010 17:42:33 Originally by: Destruct0 Originally by: Hatherley Originally by: Destruct0 Didnt I read somewhere about the new railgun weapons the US is fitting on their destroyer and cruiser class ships? The guns than can shoot almost 250 miles accurately? only in your dreams :P No no, I aint kidding, here --> Linkage yeah i know about that ^_^ railguns that work on the high seas though are a very, very long way off...nuclear powered cruisers with working, durable railguns would be so insanely powerful it's not funny big lumps of metal hitting something at 9km per second would melt everything, no defense
Viktor Fyretracker Caldari Fyretracker Heavy Industries	Posted - 2010.07.08 17:52:00 - [56] DARPA is working on stuff like that though. then again DARPA works on everything that is considered far flung.
Destruct0	Posted - 2010.07.08 18:07:00 - [57] Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker DARPA is working on stuff like that though. then again DARPA works on everything that is considered far flung. Yea, it'll make a funny video to watch a destroyer topple over from the recoil of the railgun :P Also, they showed that weapon in transformers 2 didnt they? Mounted on a battleship though..
SkyLordUK Amarr EVE Protection Agency M.U.T.I.N.Y.	Posted - 2010.07.08 22:30:00 - [58] Originally by: Hatherley Edited by: Hatherley on 08/07/2010 17:42:33 Originally by: Destruct0 Originally by: Hatherley Originally by: Destruct0 Didnt I read somewhere about the new railgun weapons the US is fitting on their destroyer and cruiser class ships? The guns than can shoot almost 250 miles accurately? only in your dreams :P No no, I aint kidding, here --> Linkage yeah i know about that ^_^ railguns that work on the high seas though are a very, very long way off...nuclear powered cruisers with working, durable railguns would be so insanely powerful it's not funny big lumps of metal hitting something at 9km per second would melt everything, no defense actually the first US boats to be equiped with railguns will be deployed around 2020-25 not long off at all and to the post above there is not alot of laterial recoil as it iis magnets that are used to accelerate slugs not explosive powder Sky. ---------------------------------------------- Jumping Gates is like a box of sweets You just dont know were the sour one is
Larkonis Trassler EMIX INC	Posted - 2010.07.08 23:44:00 - [59] Originally by: SkyLordUK and to the post above there is not alot of laterial recoil as it iis magnets that are used to accelerate slugs not explosive powder Isaac Newton would like a word with you sir.
Intense Thinker Minmatar	Posted - 2010.07.09 00:20:00 - [60] Originally by: Destruct0 Yea, it'll make a funny video to watch a destroyer topple over from the recoil of the railgun :P It'll make like a kayak and roll over and upright again Originally by: captain foivos It's not griefing, it's surprise PvP.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.