| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vogue
Skynet Nexus
   |
Posted - 2010.07.04 19:50:00 -
[1]
Great documentary about The latest Type 45 destroyer HMS Daring. From its design, construction and use.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/building-britains-ultimate-warship/4od#3089519
..................................................
Cylon cultural victor! |
Vak'ran
|
Posted - 2010.07.04 19:54:00 -
[2]
Link is moot, channel 4 doesnt like to share with the rest of the world.
Vak'Ran is your local official non-dedicated part-time advocate of reading comprehension and proliferation of intelligence on the EVE Online Forum |
Hatherley
|
Posted - 2010.07.04 20:16:00 -
[3]
In true English style, a vast overspend for underpowered ships  we spent ú1.1 billion pounds per IIRC.
|
justin666
|
Posted - 2010.07.04 20:26:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Hatherley
In true English style, a vast overspend for underpowered ships we spent ú1.1 billion pounds per IIRC.
its a anti air ship....not anti ship and it does its role very well from what they seen
|
Lance Fighter
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.07.04 20:26:00 -
[5]
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
Originally by: CCP Shadow
Have you ever wished you could have prevented a train wreck before it actually happened? I need to stop this one before the craziness begins.
|
Hatherley
|
Posted - 2010.07.04 20:33:00 -
[6]
yeah we're building some Queen Elizabeth class carriers too, they seem pretty decent (about 80% the size of a Nimitz) 
|
baltec1
Antares Shipyards
Circle-Of-Two
|
Posted - 2010.07.04 20:35:00 -
[7]
Look at what the other úbillion went on
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.07.04 21:09:00 -
[8]
Quote:
and oh, an anti-air destroyer? meh any well equipped task force has enough alternatives anyway
Euhm pretty much every well equipped task force has a dedicated anti-air ship.
At least it has better radar systems than US ships, dunno about the rest really.
|
Meiyang Lee
Gallente
Azteca Transportation Unlimited
Gunboat Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2010.07.04 21:15:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Furb Killer
Quote:
and oh, an anti-air destroyer? meh any well equipped task force has enough alternatives anyway
Euhm pretty much every well equipped task force has a dedicated anti-air ship.
At least it has better radar systems than US ships, dunno about the rest really.
About 75% chance of that radar being Dutch.  We do make the best in the world.
As are the goalkeeper guns on it.
|
Vogue
Skynet Nexus
|
Posted - 2010.07.04 21:15:00 -
[10]
Years ago I played Harpoon a naval warfare simulator. You had an interface like an air traffic control screen. They used it to form fictional scenarios in the Tom Clancy book Red Storm Rising. Where a wing of Russian Backfire bombers decimated a US carrier fleet. Of course that is just a simualator. But the falklands war AFAIK is the only example of modern naval warfare. And most notably where an Exocet missile sank HMS Sheffield.
..................................................
Cylon cultural victor! |
baltec1
Antares Shipyards
Circle-Of-Two
|
Posted - 2010.07.04 21:21:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Meiyang Lee
Originally by: Furb Killer
Quote:
and oh, an anti-air destroyer? meh any well equipped task force has enough alternatives anyway
Euhm pretty much every well equipped task force has a dedicated anti-air ship.
At least it has better radar systems than US ships, dunno about the rest really.
About 75% chance of that radar being Dutch. We do make the best in the world.
As are the goalkeeper guns on it.
Agreement on dutch goalkeepers being better than english ones.
|
Meiyang Lee
Gallente
Azteca Transportation Unlimited
Gunboat Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2010.07.04 21:24:00 -
[12]
Originally by: baltec1
Agreement on dutch goalkeepers being better than english ones.
 I wasn't talking about the football kind.
Goalkeeper cannon are designed to take out anti-ship missiles at short range.
They're a Dutch developed weapon-system.
|
Hatherley
|
Posted - 2010.07.04 21:41:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Meiyang Lee
Originally by: Furb Killer
Quote:
and oh, an anti-air destroyer? meh any well equipped task force has enough alternatives anyway
Euhm pretty much every well equipped task force has a dedicated anti-air ship.
At least it has better radar systems than US ships, dunno about the rest really.
About 75% chance of that radar being Dutch. We do make the best in the world.
As are the goalkeeper guns on it.
has British and Dutch as far as I can see ^_^
|
XenosisReaper
Rising Ashes Inc.
Honourable Templum of Alcedonia
|
Posted - 2010.07.04 21:49:00 -
[14]
Ramming speed.
Originally by: CCP Shadow
The name XenosisReaper will live on forever
|
Lance Fighter
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.07.04 21:56:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Furb Killer
Quote:
and oh, an anti-air destroyer? meh any well equipped task force has enough alternatives anyway
Euhm pretty much every well equipped task force has a dedicated anti-air ship.
At least it has better radar systems than US ships, dunno about the rest really.
... has enough alternatives to blow up an anti-air ship, not alternatives to shooting down planes.
Honestly..
most of my naval combat information comes from the NOTA mod for spring.
Originally by: CCP Shadow
Have you ever wished you could have prevented a train wreck before it actually happened? I need to stop this one before the craziness begins.
|
Hatherley
|
Posted - 2010.07.04 21:58:00 -
[16]
Originally by: baltec1
Look at what the other úbillion went on
oooh-eerr
*downloads*
|
Astenion
Blame The Bunny
Bunny Nation
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 00:18:00 -
[17]
Originally by: baltec1
Look at what the other úbillion went on
If it had linked to hookers and blow, that would've been perfect.
|
Test9042
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 01:39:00 -
[18]
The Type-45 is currently the best at its role in the world - nothing surpasses it in technology and weapons systems - from Wikipedia - "be the Royal Navy's most capable destroyer ever, as well as the world's best air-defence ship."
Then again, just wait a few years to see what Daring will be escorting :
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/upload/img_400/carrier1_20090227101747.jpg
|
Jhagiti Tyran
Invicta.
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 01:41:00 -
[19]
Originally by: baltec1
Look at what the other úbillion went on
Out of interest does anyone who knows about naval warfare know how the Astute class compared to say the US Seawolf and Virginia class?
|
Intense Thinker
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 06:42:00 -
[20]
Sorry, this is the greatest sub ever made 
Originally by: captain foivos
It's not griefing, it's surprise PvP.
|
Meiyang Lee
Gallente
Azteca Transportation Unlimited
Gunboat Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 06:55:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Meiyang Lee on 05/07/2010 07:01:54
Originally by: Jhagiti Tyran
Originally by: baltec1
Look at what the other úbillion went on
Out of interest does anyone who knows about naval warfare know how the Astute class compared to say the US Seawolf and Virginia class?
Slightly shorter (97m vs 115m), a bit wider (11.3m vs 10) than a Virginia Class, about 4 knots faster than a Virginia, 6 knots slower than a Seawolf, both values while submerged.
Smaller crew (98) compared to the Virginia's 134 and Seawolf's 140, but no hot-bunking needed, 1 bunk per crewmember.
2 More Tubes than a Virginia, but 2 less than a Seawolf. Comparable armaments though, Tomahawk Cruise Missiles, Harpoon Anti-Ship Missiles and Torpedoes (not sure how US Mk48 Torps compare to British Spearfish).
The Astute uses Pump-Jet propulsion rather than an advanced Propeller design like both Virginia and Seawolf Classes, so potentially it's a bit stealthier than either of those 2.
The Astute also has a highly advanced sensor package for a sub it's size, but I'm not certain how it compares to say the Seawolf's which is rather good as well.
Like most British submarines it has a hardened conning tower to break through pack ice if needed.
|
baltec1
Antares Shipyards
Circle-Of-Two
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 09:13:00 -
[22]
Everything said above is at least what is possible for the new sub but we also have to keep in mind that the top speed, sonar range (which they say can hear a tug boat in new york from southhampton) and most other things are classified. It is safe to say though that it is currently the most advanced sub in the sea
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 09:16:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Meiyang Lee
Originally by: Furb Killer
Quote:
and oh, an anti-air destroyer? meh any well equipped task force has enough alternatives anyway
Euhm pretty much every well equipped task force has a dedicated anti-air ship.
At least it has better radar systems than US ships, dunno about the rest really.
About 75% chance of that radar being Dutch. We do make the best in the world.
As are the goalkeeper guns on it.
About 75% of it is Dutch ;)
It is indeed a Dutch radar, but with some modifications made by the brittish. Cheaper and way better than US radar systems, but they rather use inferior stuff than buying from other countries.
|
Meiyang Lee
Gallente
Azteca Transportation Unlimited
Gunboat Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 09:18:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Meiyang Lee on 05/07/2010 09:18:59
Originally by: baltec1
Everything said above is at least what is possible for the new sub but we also have to keep in mind that the top speed, sonar range (which they say can hear a tug boat in new york from southhampton) and most other things are classified. It is safe to say though that it is currently the most advanced sub in the sea
The Wikipedia page for the Astute is surprisingly comprehensive with clear citations all over the place. I got all the info posted above from there, so while it may understate some of the actual stats of the vessel, the info on it's sonar suite and such is very comprehensive, with most components named along with it's manufacturer. It's passive/active sonar package is quite impressive indeed with a range of thousands of miles.
|
Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 10:39:00 -
[25]
A gigantic waste of resources to build these ships really.
makes me sad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html |
Something Random
Gallente
The Barrow Boys
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 10:50:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Furb Killer
About 75% of it is Dutch ;)
It is indeed a Dutch radar, but with some modifications made by the brittish. Cheaper and way better than US radar systems, but they rather use inferior stuff than buying from other countries.
Far be it for me to defend the US...
but there is good reason to develop independantly as Argentina found out when the current British Prime Minister... some lady... forget her name, leant on the French President to give her military the control codes for the Exocet missiles currently laying waste to her Armada.
No idea what she said but she got what she wanted.
Originally by: CCP Fallout
:facepalm:
Aint that right? |
baltec1
Antares Shipyards
Circle-Of-Two
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 16:00:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Sidus Isaacs
A gigantic waste of resources to build these ships really.
makes me sad.
Unlike other nations, we actually use our subs
|
Iasius
Skynet Nexus
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 16:10:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Iasius on 05/07/2010 16:10:48
The program about HMS Astute was good but more vague than the HMS Daring program because of secrecy. Like most people I have worked in an office and found it inane, weird and not fulfilling enough. To work for your own country's navy appears very satisfying.
From chatting to ex services people over the years there is far more camaraderie in the militery than in an office. With quite a few tales of seasoned sergeants telling noob officers 'this is the way to do it, i will show you and get out of my way'
If I was not bonkers I think I should have joined the forces years ago heh.
Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes. ~Saint |
Irida Mershkov
Gallente
Capsuleers of Doom
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 16:14:00 -
[29]
Suck it Argentina.
|
Jhagiti Tyran
Invicta.
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 21:39:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Sidus Isaacs
A gigantic waste of resources to build these ships really.
makes me sad.
Its not a waste at all with the new class of sub and destroyers and the upcoming Queen Mary class aircraft carrier it secures the Royal Navy's future, which after the chronic under investment over the decades which nearly cost us the Falklands war its a welcome change.
|
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.
|
Stitcher
Caldari
ForgeTech Industries
|
Posted - 2010.07.09 11:36:00 -
[61]
Edited by: Stitcher on 09/07/2010 11:36:23
Made me want to join the navy tbh.
That's assuming CCP don't hire me first of course.
-
Verin "Stitcher" Hakatain. |
linkeleo
Fairlight Corp
Rooks and Kings
|
Posted - 2010.07.09 14:54:00 -
[62]
Edited by: linkeleo on 09/07/2010 14:54:04
Originally by: Hatherley
In true English style, a vast overspend for underpowered ships we spent ú1.1 billion pounds per IIRC.
paid for by the English, built by the Scottish, and the Scottish say hello by Glassin a Goon and having 6 guys jump on your head...
|
Nova Fox
Gallente
Novafox Shipyards
|
Posted - 2010.07.09 23:38:00 -
[63]
Edited by: Nova Fox on 09/07/2010 23:39:48
Politicans are oftenly mistaken that oh if we build less it gets cheaper.
Operational costs aside this is mostly a false fact (operational costs vary from ship to ship from maintenance, manning, to life span of the object in question but rarely if never, is that actually USED as an argument half of the time they only see a price tag and think 'oh gee I can get votes cancelling this one'.)
Highest cost of any new military program is RnD, this cost does not change for the overall project.
So if you planned on building 10 copies and RnD is 1 billion and copies are a million a pop to build in materials that should bring the total bill to 101 million a pop.
Poltiicans think well thats too expensive can we just have one instead.
Congradulations that one ship is now 1billion.
Very few cases where the reverse is opposite where actaully building fewer would save money because the materials used are extremly high priced. Some extremly high tech stuff comes to mind like the B-2 Spirit bomber and the like.
A mordern (considering the tech isnt that drastically different from 20 yrs ago) Anti-air ship should not have such a high copy cost.
BTW BBC sucks and i think they're a bucnh of socialists by restricting free press by not letting other people view thier stuff as I would have loved to see the video.
Pre-order your Sisters of ≡v≡ Exploration ship today, Updated 24FEB10
|
Another Liberthas
Caldari
Creative Cookie Procuring
Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 00:49:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Nova Fox
Edited by: Nova Fox on 09/07/2010 23:39:48
BTW BBC sucks and i think they're a bucnh of socialists by restricting free press by not letting other people view thier stuff as I would have loved to see the video.
Well it's not a BBC video. It's Channel 4.
|
Nova Fox
Gallente
Novafox Shipyards
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 01:48:00 -
[65]
Redirects displeasure at channel 4,
curse you channel 4 you've first plagued my childhood with inconsitent workings with my vcr and nintendo now you plauge me with denying me mental entertainment.
Pre-order your Sisters of ≡v≡ Exploration ship today, Updated 24FEB10
|
Arnold Predator
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 02:13:00 -
[66]
As a yank thatÆs from a family that have all served in the USN. ItÆs about time you guys (brits) get some useful ships out there. Your ships were outdated 20 years ago and are so small that they can't do much of anything. Then again youÆre spending a lot less then the US does on your navy so good on you. 4.5 billion is what the US government tells us there spending. That being said our government is like an ex with a credit card... MAX IT OUT and stick him/her with the bill. Only this time itÆs the US taxpayers so the cost is more then the 4.5B for sure.
Its funny to think that less then 200 years ago you brits had the most feared navy around. Now its a bunch of outdated courser size ships that don't hold a candle to what most of the world has.
No troll intended but I am a yank... and ****ing people off is what we do best. ;)
|
Hatherley
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 06:07:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Arnold Predator
As a yank thatÆs from a family that have all served in the USN. ItÆs about time you guys (brits) get some useful ships out there. Your ships were outdated 20 years ago and are so small that they can't do much of anything. Then again youÆre spending a lot less then the US does on your navy so good on you. 4.5 billion is what the US government tells us there spending. That being said our government is like an ex with a credit card... MAX IT OUT and stick him/her with the bill. Only this time itÆs the US taxpayers so the cost is more then the 4.5B for sure.
Its funny to think that less then 200 years ago you brits had the most feared navy around. Now its a bunch of outdated courser size ships that don't hold a candle to what most of the world has.
No troll intended but I am a yank... and ****ing people off is what we do best. ;)
You're absolutely right that our armed forces need more funding, it is painfully true, as is evidenced by our army in Iraq/Afganistan. Even as recently as the outbreak of WW2 our navy was pretty huge (larger than the USA), but that war basically drove us into ruin and saw the USA flex its rather vast industrial might, and now we have Carriers that are nearing 40 years old and the USA 11 or 12 Nimitz Supercarriers with every battlegroup being larger than our navy  . The new carriers are distinctly superior to these though, more like Nimitz without the huge overkill and with better technology, I guess, and the type 45s should stop a Falklands happening to us or our Allies' ships again.
awww...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/HMS_Ark_Royal_USS_Nimitz_Norfolk1_1978.jpeg
I do envy America's funding, you even had fully fit Battleships, by now totally obsolete, until the mid 90s, the only sign of vanity needed to show the US navy was orders of magnitude more powerful than whoever was in second place.
|
Nova Fox
Gallente
Novafox Shipyards
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 09:58:00 -
[68]
Battleships obsolete?
Well if you throw in a nuclear reactor, slim down the profile, incorporate some nice multiple spectrum waveform dection systems, Trimeran hull it to prevent spinal snapping with super capating torpedoes should the microwave field counter measure fails to detonate it. Slap a few good Free Electron Lasers for AA and some railguns specifically built for the battleships power system youd probably have a fearsome ship.
This ship could get support fire on spot and on demand faster and possibly outranging any fighter launchable from the carriers, and a decent zone of control least surface and anything above the surface and not be such a big or vunerable target.
Just remember before the tank was very close to becomming exticnt, rather sensless to have a multi million dollar tank destroyed by a 500$ rocket. Thank the brits with thier join innovation with the reactive armors the challengers and abrams greatly enjoy. I would love to see the hull polerized shielding and super banite magnets in action that the brits are developing for thier light weights scouts.
Pre-order your Sisters of ≡v≡ Exploration ship today, Updated 24FEB10
|
Admiral Takia
Caldari
Running With Scissors Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 15:44:00 -
[69]
battleship to E-4
You had a destroyer there? *admires smoking wreckage*
Just sayin'
|
baltec1
Antares Shipyards
Circle-Of-Two
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 16:25:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Arnold Predator
As a yank thatÆs from a family that have all served in the USN. ItÆs about time you guys (brits) get some useful ships out there. Your ships were outdated 20 years ago and are so small that they can't do much of anything. Then again youÆre spending a lot less then the US does on your navy so good on you. 4.5 billion is what the US government tells us there spending. That being said our government is like an ex with a credit card... MAX IT OUT and stick him/her with the bill. Only this time itÆs the US taxpayers so the cost is more then the 4.5B for sure.
Its funny to think that less then 200 years ago you brits had the most feared navy around. Now its a bunch of outdated courser size ships that don't hold a candle to what most of the world has.
No troll intended but I am a yank... and ****ing people off is what we do best. ;)
Yet we won what the Americans thought was an unwinnable war with our little carriers with harriers. The empire might be gone and with it the mighty fleets of our Imperial might but Britannia still rules the waves
|
Vogue
Skynet Nexus
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 16:36:00 -
[71]
The Falklands was a close run thing. The Admiral in charge of the fleet said that if it lasted another 2 weeks they would have lost. Systems were failing on navy ships. This is something overlooked with modern militaries - the maintenance quality of ships, tanks, fighters etc. I can't find the link but there was a league table with USA at the top with 100 and then other countries with a relative score. UK was around 76.
..................................................
Cylon cultural victor! |
Viktor Fyretracker
Caldari
Fyretracker Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 20:29:00 -
[72]
The BS might be obsolete but god damn, no weapons system on any ship today will ever match the raw show of power that an Iowa Class could with a broadside. but they took way too many crew to operate for the size of ship by modern standards.
however i bet they could have refit to be nuclear powered, because they used steam turbines to drive the screws what is the difference between a boiler and a reactor? nothing really, even the Nimitz carriers are glorified steamboats.
|
Hatherley
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 21:18:00 -
[73]
indeed, aircraft carriers and subs have made battleships worse than useless as not only inferior in boom boom but as giant targets. You can't just plop a naval reactor into a conventional design either :P
And yes the Falklands was not 'easy' in the slightest (though you would never, ever expect an admiral to say anything other than something which basically means 'give us more funding' even if we were fighting a coracle with a mounted spun gun), it was a long distance from the UK and we were fighting a modern fighting force that could fight back with modern aircraft and weaponry, unlike in Iraq where a single challenger2/M1a2 could likely wipe out entire battalions of their T60 or whatever tanks. As shown by unfortunate friendly fire, a fight between modern tanks however = whoever fires/hits first wins...
|
Vogue
Skynet Nexus
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 21:27:00 -
[74]
Edited by: Vogue on 10/07/2010 21:28:19
The Japanese built the biggest ever battleships. The Yamamoto and its sister ships were 72,800 tons!
WW2 gave a learning curve to the naval technology at the time which had not been tested in large scale warfare. And radar was seen as a bit of a gimmick for a while before it was taken seriously.
Likewise I think there would be a learning curve if a big naval battle happened in our current times. I think missile spam ftw! Rather than have missiles that skim above sea level that can be taken out by those point defense gatling machine gun things why don't missiles shoot upwards. At 10,000 feet then would be directly above a target ship then zoom down.
..................................................
Cylon cultural victor! |
Viktor Fyretracker
Caldari
Fyretracker Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 21:27:00 -
[75]
i dont think truely modern militaries will engage in open war for anytime in the near future. mostly because two big nations in a true war, one would likely get an ichy trigger finger on a certain weapons class and then its Defcon 1 time.. of course that is why we have proxy wars where we give smaller countries modern weapons....
|
Arianhod
Red Dwarf Mining Corporation
space weaponry and trade
|
Posted - 2010.07.11 14:43:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker
i dont think truely modern militaries will engage in open war for anytime in the near future. mostly because two big nations in a true war, one would likely get an ichy trigger finger on a certain weapons class and then its Defcon 1 time.. of course that is why we have proxy wars where we give smaller countries modern weapons....
Exactly, so we should maintain a modern military to make sure other modern militaries, or ones that can blob us don't get any ideas
And with regards to the number of aircraft carriers, I would have hope we would have a few more of them so we could maintain a force in each ocean, Atlandic, Pacific, Indian and home isles for starters.... I would have prefered some of the bailout money to be directed at the military, we build most of our own kit so it stimulates domestic industry.
Anyone know how an F22 (I think it was, the colaberative weapon with the yanks and a few other nations) vs the Navalised Typhoon on the supercarriers?
Haruhiists - Overloading Out of Pod discussions since 2007.
Haruhiists - Redeclaring open warfare on Out of Pod since 2010. |
Dimitryy
Gallente
Ever Flow
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.07.11 21:36:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Arianhod
Anyone know how an F22 (I think it was, the colaberative weapon with the yanks and a few other nations) vs the Navalised Typhoon on the supercarriers?
As far as i know, the F22 program was entirely US funded, and Lockheed Martin is actually under an export ban, they couldn't sell it if they wanted to. So as to the F22 facing off against the UK's Typhoon Navy Issue (seewhatididthere), it seems pretty unlikely.
What you might be thinking of is the F35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, which will be available for export immediately. (It too is American made, the 'joint' refers to the branches of armed service, rather than multiple nations). While the F35 JSF will be less stealthy, slower, and have a lower ceiling, it will supposedly sport considerably more advanced electronics.
As far as i can tell, the paper stats of the F35 and the Typhoon are similar enough to make a real definitive answer almost impossible, and i'll leave it to the fanboys to hash out every last nuance of the two aircraft.
Honestly i think it would come down to roles. If the F35s were configured to engage the Typhoon's carriers, and were thus set up to engage air to ground, they would only have their two dedicated air to air weapons available, where as the Typhoons could be launched with an entire air superiority loadout. In that case i would give it to the Phoons. Similarily if the Typhoons were engaging a ground target and the F35s were set up with a fully air to air complement, i would give it to the F35s.
-Dimi
------------------------------------------
Jack Blackstone > Dimitryy I hope you die. |
Arianhod
Red Dwarf Mining Corporation
space weaponry and trade
|
Posted - 2010.07.11 22:16:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Dimitryy
Originally by: Arianhod
Anyone know how an F22 (I think it was, the colaberative weapon with the yanks and a few other nations) vs the Navalised Typhoon on the supercarriers?
As far as i know, the F22 program was entirely US funded, and Lockheed Martin is actually under an export ban, they couldn't sell it if they wanted to. So as to the F22 facing off against the UK's Typhoon Navy Issue (seewhatididthere), it seems pretty unlikely.
Ah cool, thanks for the info
One thing though, I looked up the F35 and it is a collaberative weapon [source] and the main partners are "The United Kingdom, Italy, The Netherlands, Canada, Norway, Denmark, Australia and Turkey".
Haruhiists - Overloading Out of Pod discussions since 2007.
Haruhiists - Redeclaring open warfare on Out of Pod since 2010. |
Rayce Farelle
|
Posted - 2010.07.12 00:44:00 -
[79]
From my point of view ( and i consider naval history my forte) there is one very specific reason why the our navy is so far inferior to aLOT of the other naval powers. It is quite complicated so bear with me  . There are two sorts of naval doctrines that concern the idea of BS over Carrier. Firstly the Royal Navy was seated in the Ship-of-the-line ("Big Gun") Doctrine. This entails a heavy reliance on large vessels- namely BS and BC/CA being the mainstay of your force. 90% of the World's Navies at the time had the same doctrine. However, both the Japanese and the Americans focused much more intently on the Mobile Air Group Doctrine, with the mainstay of the fleet being centred around Aircraft Carriers, being screened by generally smaller ships-of-line - ( with the exceptions of course to the Iowa Class, Yamato Class (and maybe even the Northampton, but heh)). The first doctrine (from now i will call BG) will work effectively against the navy with a similar doctrine, but work much less effectively against a navy using a MAG doctrine. It is this reason why the Royal Navy a lacking so far behind that of the USN and others.
The reason is because after WW2, all the worlds Navies, apart from the USN had to re-equip and modernise (either because they had been wiped out- French, Italian, German, Japanese, Soviet or had been severely demoralised.). The US was in the position where they didn't have to do a major overhaul, the defeated powers, had a clean slate to start from scratch. The Royal Navy however, hadn't been too badly wounded. Therefore in keeping with what was perceived as the most successful naval doctrine (MAG) they had to completely re-modernise. That left the Royal Navy with a hand in both jars. They couldn't just scrap everything and start from scratch, but they didn't have the resources like the USN to put into a fully developed MAG fleet layout. The Royal Navy is just getting out of its recovery phase, and has settled with the MAG doctrine- hence the 2 new QE Carriers. However, you may be thinking that why are we so far inferior still to navies like the Brazilians, Pakistanis and Indian Navies (no offence to anyone intended, but we are one of the original naval powers that pride ourselves over it considering our lack of armed forces in general). This is because they have had the last 60 odd years to choose either the BG or MAG doctrine (or somewhere in between- but that's another matter) and improve their navy whereas we have spent 60 years refocussing our navy, on a very limited budget (for many years after WW2) and playing catch up.
If anyone wants to know more or ask questions, please feel free to send me an eve mail. I'm not an expert and don't want to intimidate anyone, and please if Ive got it completely wrong don't hesitate to correct me :)
R. Farelle
|
Viktor Fyretracker
Caldari
Fyretracker Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2010.07.12 05:23:00 -
[80]
The USS Enterprise is a pretty damn old ship lets not forget.
but i think there is a design on the drawingboards to replace it. i know there is a campaign to make sure the replacement is also named Enterprise.
|
Rayce Farelle
|
Posted - 2010.07.14 19:25:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker
The USS Enterprise is a pretty damn old ship lets not forget.
but i think there is a design on the drawingboards to replace it. i know there is a campaign to make sure the replacement is also named Enterprise.
Launched in 1960 and due to be decommisioned in 2013 so it's not that old to be honest. That sort of lifespan is the normal expected lifespan of a Nuclear powered Aircraft Carrier. There is always the option to extend the life of the Enterprise by extracting the reactors, and replacing them with diesel turbines, and then selling it off to countries that have a use for a flagship carrier.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |