EVE Search - HMS Daring

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

HMS Daring

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Royaldo Gallente KVA Noble Inc. Institute of Cooperative Education	Posted - 2007.08.17 02:15:00 - [61] 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?
Mc Gyver Gallente	Posted - 2007.08.17 02:33:00 - [62] Edited by: Mc Gyver on 17/08/2007 02:38:58 Edited by: Mc Gyver on 17/08/2007 02:37:18 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? Aren't allies supposed to have each others backs? The more globalized the world becomes, the more diversified the "allied forces" will have to become... The USA won't have the cash to spend on this stuff forever. Sooner or later our combined forces will be all we have against whatever opposes our way of life down the road... And I'm sorry to say, UN & NATO forces are not up to the challenge. You don't have to help us for us alone, but I'd hope you'd want to keep allied nations able to continue with the prosperity we all (for the most part) are experiencing right now. At some point in the future the USA will no longer be able to go it alone... It will take a combined effort... There will be economic globalization someday, but I think we can all see before we get to that point, there is going to be at least two sides of humanity that oppose one another (maily due to cultural & political differences)... Both of those sides will need offensive & defensive capabilities, not just capabilities for each country to defend themselves alone... Don't you want to be assured your side has military superiority? So I didn't really mean helping the USA directly, we all know none of you care to do that (Except the UK & Australia, they always seem to help even if they disagree)... But collectively, I think we need to start worrying about the future, one that includes the USA no longer as a superpower...
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.08.17 03:22:00 - [63] 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.
Calisto Cody Minmatar The Black Swan Society	Posted - 2007.08.17 05:10:00 - [64] Originally by: Micheal Dietrich I watched a program recently on the either the military channel or the history channel and they stated that battleships are being phased out and replaced with smaller, faster ships like missile cruisers and such. must of being an old rerun because as far as I know none are in any active fleet... ah found the quote "With the decommissioning of the last Iowas, no battleships remain in service (including in reserve) with any navy worldwide. A number are preserved as museum ships, either afloat or in dry-dock. The USA has a large number of battleships on display." "I just like ships that are symmetrical, not ships with 5 propulsion jets on one side and 3 on the other and than maybe one in another random spot."
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.08.17 05:51:00 - [65] Originally by: Calisto Cody Originally by: Micheal Dietrich I watched a program recently on the either the military channel or the history channel and they stated that battleships are being phased out and replaced with smaller, faster ships like missile cruisers and such. must of being an old rerun because as far as I know none are in any active fleet... ah found the quote "With the decommissioning of the last Iowas, no battleships remain in service (including in reserve) with any navy worldwide. A number are preserved as museum ships, either afloat or in dry-dock. The USA has a large number of battleships on display." The fleet role of ship-killing gunships and offshore bombardment platforms went the way of pith helmets and press gangs. When a ship the size of a bus can kill another ship from over the horizon, why on earth would you field one half the size of an aircraft carrier? Also, when a stealth aircraft can take off from Alabama, bomb a target in Baghdad, and fly home, why the hell would you risk non-essential assets in the Persian Gulf? Battleships just make absolutely no sense in a modern navy. Sucks, though, as I've always been a big fan of battleships and battlecruisers in a general sense. On an unrelated note, take a couple of these new Type 45 destroyers and an AEGIS cruiser, and you could arguably dominate any chunk of sea you saw fit. I'm having a tough time coming up with a method of killing them short of target saturation or resource denial.
Calisto Cody Minmatar The Black Swan Society	Posted - 2007.08.17 06:16:00 - [66] I love battleships too :( Originally by: Amarria Black I'm having a tough time coming up with a method of killing them short of target saturation or resource denial. Blob? ^_^ "I just like ships that are symmetrical, not ships with 5 propulsion jets on one side and 3 on the other and than maybe one in another random spot."
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.08.17 06:21:00 - [67] Originally by: Calisto Cody I love battleships too :( Originally by: Amarria Black I'm having a tough time coming up with a method of killing them short of target saturation or resource denial. Blob? ^_^ Heh, that would be the saturation part. Fire a missile at an AEGIS crusier, the cruiser swats the missile out of the sky with little effort, uses its over-the-top sensor equipment to find you, and then proceeds to WTFPWN you. Fire 50, and you get a better (albeit more expensive) result.
Patch86 Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2007.08.17 12:55:00 - [68] Originally by: Amarria Black Originally by: Calisto Cody I love battleships too :( Originally by: Amarria Black I'm having a tough time coming up with a method of killing them short of target saturation or resource denial. Blob? ^_^ Heh, that would be the saturation part. Fire a missile at an AEGIS crusier, the cruiser swats the missile out of the sky with little effort, uses its over-the-top sensor equipment to find you, and then proceeds to WTFPWN you. Fire 50, and you get a better (albeit more expensive) result. You could build and take along your own one of these: stalemate! Both ships can do nothing but throw missiles at each other and watch them explode at a point about equidistant between the two. The winner? Whichever one brought along the most ammunition! --------
Calisto Cody Minmatar The Black Swan Society	Posted - 2007.08.17 17:23:00 - [69] or use like 50 PT boats !! "I just like ships that are symmetrical, not ships with 5 propulsion jets on one side and 3 on the other and than maybe one in another random spot."
Verone	Posted - 2007.08.17 17:49:00 - [70] Quote: Crew comforts: First warship to include email facilities and iPod charging points. Christ... they get everywhere... >>> THE BEAUTY OF NEW EDEN <<<
Belloc Slunv Amarr Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.08.17 18:13:00 - [71] Originally by: Amarria Black Originally by: Calisto Cody Originally by: Micheal Dietrich I watched a program recently on the either the military channel or the history channel and they stated that battleships are being phased out and replaced with smaller, faster ships like missile cruisers and such. must of being an old rerun because as far as I know none are in any active fleet... ah found the quote "With the decommissioning of the last Iowas, no battleships remain in service (including in reserve) with any navy worldwide. A number are preserved as museum ships, either afloat or in dry-dock. The USA has a large number of battleships on display." The fleet role of ship-killing gunships and offshore bombardment platforms went the way of pith helmets and press gangs. When a ship the size of a bus can kill another ship from over the horizon, why on earth would you field one half the size of an aircraft carrier? Also, when a stealth aircraft can take off from Alabama, bomb a target in Baghdad, and fly home, why the hell would you risk non-essential assets in the Persian Gulf? Battleships just make absolutely no sense in a modern navy. Sucks, though, as I've always been a big fan of battleships and battlecruisers in a general sense. On an unrelated note, take a couple of these new Type 45 destroyers and an AEGIS cruiser, and you could arguably dominate any chunk of sea you saw fit. I'm having a tough time coming up with a method of killing them short of target saturation or resource denial. Submarines. The Type 45 is fitted for, but does not come with (Standard) stingray torps. And these new fangled torpedoes have atuo targetting warheads in them. That's the best solution I can think of. (I did a search for AEGIS cruisers and only found American stuff, which is why I didn't include it. After looking at the Ticonderoga class, submarines don't appear to be very viable.)
Krulla Minmatar True Centii	Posted - 2007.08.17 18:29:00 - [72] Originally by: Amarria Black Originally by: Calisto Cody Originally by: Micheal Dietrich I watched a program recently on the either the military channel or the history channel and they stated that battleships are being phased out and replaced with smaller, faster ships like missile cruisers and such. must of being an old rerun because as far as I know none are in any active fleet... ah found the quote "With the decommissioning of the last Iowas, no battleships remain in service (including in reserve) with any navy worldwide. A number are preserved as museum ships, either afloat or in dry-dock. The USA has a large number of battleships on display." The fleet role of ship-killing gunships and offshore bombardment platforms went the way of pith helmets and press gangs. When a ship the size of a bus can kill another ship from over the horizon, why on earth would you field one half the size of an aircraft carrier? Also, when a stealth aircraft can take off from Alabama, bomb a target in Baghdad, and fly home, why the hell would you risk non-essential assets in the Persian Gulf? Battleships just make absolutely no sense in a modern navy. Sucks, though, as I've always been a big fan of battleships and battlecruisers in a general sense. On an unrelated note, take a couple of these new Type 45 destroyers and an AEGIS cruiser, and you could arguably dominate any chunk of sea you saw fit. I'm having a tough time coming up with a method of killing them short of target saturation or resource denial. Well someone theroized that with the advent of Railguns (these will actually become viable weapons in the next twenty years or so), the battleship might make a comeback. The reason being that railguns need such a giant amount of power to run them, so the smaller ships wouldn't be able to house the powerplants.
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.08.17 18:30:00 - [73] Originally by: Belloc Slunv Submarines. The Type 45 is fitted for, but does not come with (Standard) stingray torps. And these new fangled torpedoes have atuo targetting warheads in them. That's the best solution I can think of. (I did a search for AEGIS cruisers and only found American stuff, which is why I didn't include it. After looking at the Ticonderoga class, submarines don't appear to be very viable.) My postulate was assuming ASW choppers on at lest the cruiser if not one or more of the destroyers. And yeah, Ticos are the current class of AEGIS cruiser. They're anti-sub, they're anti-warship, they're anti-whateverpoorbastichcomescalling. The sensor package can find and track anything below, on, or above the ocean up to the horizon and potentially beyond. Hell, most Tycos could paint a dot on the moon and sterilize targets at 100 yards using their solid-state arrays. They're armed with anti-ship and anti-missile systems, and can put aloft enough missiles to buttpound whatever is stupid enough to oppose it. Add to this anti-submarine sensors, weapons, and aircraft. Simply put, if a Tico can see it, it's probably dead.
smashsmash	Posted - 2007.08.17 18:32:00 - [74] why do people like the idea of railguns so much?
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.08.17 18:39:00 - [75] Originally by: smashsmash why do people like the idea of railguns so much? Because a straight-line weapon in atmosphere with penetration power enough to soft-kill an APC is pretty much the holy grail of weapons systems in the current strategic environment. Short of the omni-directional kill-all gun, that is.
Calisto Cody Minmatar The Black Swan Society	Posted - 2007.08.17 18:41:00 - [76] or the holy hand grenade "I just like ships that are symmetrical, not ships with 5 propulsion jets on one side and 3 on the other and than maybe one in another random spot."
Micheal Dietrich Cynical Cartel	Posted - 2007.08.17 19:02:00 - [77] Originally by: Amarria Black Originally by: smashsmash why do people like the idea of railguns so much? Because a straight-line weapon in atmosphere with penetration power enough to soft-kill an APC is pretty much the holy grail of weapons systems in the current strategic environment. Short of the omni-directional kill-all gun, that is. I 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. Aren't we just the best species in the world! We find more brutal and gruesome ways to annihalate ourselves everyday! ___________________________ Never Forget, Never Forgive
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.08.17 19:09:00 - [78] 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.
Icheckjitamarketlol	Posted - 2007.08.17 19:26:00 - [79] Originally by: Micheal Dietrich Originally by: Amarria Black Originally by: smashsmash why do people like the idea of railguns so much? Because a straight-line weapon in atmosphere with penetration power enough to soft-kill an APC is pretty much the holy grail of weapons systems in the current strategic environment. Short of the omni-directional kill-all gun, that is. I 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. 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. Originally by: Micheal Dietrich Aren't we just the best species in the world! We find more brutal and gruesome ways to annihalate ourselves everyday! Yep.
Micheal Dietrich Cynical Cartel	Posted - 2007.08.17 19:30:00 - [80] Originally by: Tarminic 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. uranium shot as I remember watching is encased in soft lead. When the shot hits the target the lead portion spreads out and causes a small indentation in the armor. The uranium then uses the indentation to melt right through the armor and right through the crew compartment. I don't know how true the next part is but supposidly the uranium round then bakes the crew inside of the vehicle leaving you with a perfectly good (although I would think radiated) apc or tank. And I would think that rails would be of great use if we ever get into space because as far as I can see they dont require air to fire. ___________________________ Never Forget, Never Forgive
Micheal Dietrich Cynical Cartel	Posted - 2007.08.17 19:36:00 - [81] 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. Recoil is mainly caused by gases leaving the weapon. When you fire a gun theres a chemical reaction caused by the gunpowder that expands and pushes the round out of the barrel. With a rail gun you have electro-magnetic rails that send a pulse up the barrel launching the projectile that way, like how our rail trains currently work. With the lack of chemicals and gases I would think the recoil would be far less. ___________________________ Never Forget, Never Forgive
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.08.17 19:53:00 - [82] 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.
lofty29 Infinitus Odium The Church.	Posted - 2007.08.17 20:49:00 - [83] Originally by: Gone'Postal Nice. I think they fracked up a little. In the next 10 years, as many as eight T45s could be built, mainly to defend the two large aircraft carriers that were ordered last month. & Ordered: 2000 Either they need a smeg load of new shipyards.. or there going to be out of date before they get 20 off the production line. Means they were ordered in year 2000 --- Project Mayhem 2
Malcanis High4Life Curse Alliance	Posted - 2007.08.17 21:13:00 - [84] Originally by: Micheal Dietrich 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. Recoil is mainly caused by gases leaving the weapon. When you fire a gun theres a chemical reaction caused by the gunpowder that expands and pushes the round out of the barrel. With a rail gun you have electro-magnetic rails that send a pulse up the barrel launching the projectile that way, like how our rail trains currently work. With the lack of chemicals and gases I would think the recoil would be far less. Recoil is caused by the operation of Newton's Laws. Specifically the one that goes: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you apply 100,000N of force to the projectile, then 100,000N is also applied to you. There is no way around this within the realm of known science. Rail guns will have recoil, and plenty of it. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Belloc Slunv Amarr Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.08.17 21:51:00 - [85] If I remember correctly the uranium rounds use depelted uranium, which basically means -less- radiation. If any at all, I know when the A-10 warthogs blow something up I never saw pictures of our troops inspecting the damage in radhaz suits.
Micheal Dietrich Cynical Cartel	Posted - 2007.08.17 22:00:00 - [86] Originally by: Belloc Slunv If I remember correctly the uranium rounds use depelted uranium, which basically means -less- radiation. If any at all, I know when the A-10 warthogs blow something up I never saw pictures of our troops inspecting the damage in radhaz suits. Yeah each time they talk about it I can imagine a sniper talking about his kills while he's getting kemo . But I'm sure they've worked around this. And I love Warthogs. The T-bolts were always our tanks in the sky even back in WW2. ___________________________ Never Forget, Never Forgive
Priest Valour Amarr Ramdon Industries corporation	Posted - 2007.08.17 22:26:00 - [87] hmm interesting subject.... Now let me review a few points, The U.K. is building ships that can shoot down enemy missiles 'the size of cricket balls and ONE ship can protect the whole of London. Sooo 10 - 15 ship can protect the entire U.K. ? So we (the U.K.) could nuke anyone without direct consequence, given we had 10 or 15 of these ships..... again interesting. Germany is continuing to rearm itself substantially and is already a major economic force in Europe/The world.(now given there record in the past .....). This coupled with the fact that the european elite are trying to make a super state with america (The idea disgusts me no end) and a european super army, which in turn equaqtes to a european super/hyper power .....this is very very interesting. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The European super power will have a competitor in 50 or so years (probably alot less but I feel in a very benevolent mood) which will be China. Which at the moment is just interested in securing energy. If China should choose to 'Join the arms race' given the fact that it could field an ARMY the size of America's population (Chinese national consrciption anyone? lets hope we never see it in it fullest form). is again very interesting. America is going to crash and burn, I say this with no malice as I have lots of family in America, but the small hardcore of greedy intelligent people that run America/West have over stretch themselves in to many areas. The American economy is like an Easter Egg, it looks very nice, tastey and pretty but if you are able to take a big bite of it you will see it is hollow. In 30 - 50 years America and maybe some parts of the west, well we will have alot in common with the old South Africa. The only difference being it won't be race that divides us it will be class. We have some dark choices ahead of us, we do indeed live in interesting times. Predictions from Priest Valour based on current events.
Red Gabba JuBa Corp RONA Alliance	Posted - 2007.08.17 23:31:00 - [88] Nice Pic of a current British carrier and a US one, the new British carrier will be a similar size apparently to a Nimitz class carrier. JuBa Corp
DarkMatter Sintered Sanity	Posted - 2007.08.18 01:54:00 - [89] Originally by: Priest Valour hmm interesting subject.... Now let me review a few points, The U.K. is building ships that can shoot down enemy missiles 'the size of cricket balls and ONE ship can protect the whole of London. Sooo 10 - 15 ship can protect the entire U.K. ? So we (the U.K.) could nuke anyone without direct consequence, given we had 10 or 15 of these ships..... again interesting. Germany is continuing to rearm itself substantially and is already a major economic force in Europe/The world.(now given there record in the past .....). This coupled with the fact that the european elite are trying to make a super state with america (The idea disgusts me no end) and a european super army, which in turn equaqtes to a european super/hyper power .....this is very very interesting. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The European super power will have a competitor in 50 or so years (probably alot less but I feel in a very benevolent mood) which will be China. Which at the moment is just interested in securing energy. If China should choose to 'Join the arms race' given the fact that it could field an ARMY the size of America's population (Chinese national consrciption anyone? lets hope we never see it in it fullest form). is again very interesting. America is going to crash and burn, I say this with no malice as I have lots of family in America, but the small hardcore of greedy intelligent people that run America/West have over stretch themselves in to many areas. The American economy is like an Easter Egg, it looks very nice, tastey and pretty but if you are able to take a big bite of it you will see it is hollow. In 30 - 50 years America and maybe some parts of the west, well we will have alot in common with the old South Africa. The only difference being it won't be race that divides us it will be class. We have some dark choices ahead of us, we do indeed live in interesting times. Predictions from Priest Valour based on current events. It's tough to say exactly what will happen. But you're view of the American economy is a bit flawed. Yes it's on the decline, but it's not as strong as some think, and it's not as weak as you think. It will indeed be interesting to see what happens... Things can change, China can change. I guess we really don't know who will be dominating in 50 years... My Infinity Ship Designs: T-Y9, Hauler
Priest Valour Amarr Ramdon Industries corporation	Posted - 2007.08.18 02:11:00 - [90] Edited by: Priest Valour on 18/08/2007 02:13:32 It's tough to say exactly what will happen. But you're view of the American economy is a bit flawed. Yes it's on the decline, but it's not as strong as some think, and it's not as weak as you think. It will indeed be interesting to see what happens... Things can change, China can change. I guess we really don't know who will be dominating in 50 years... Ofcourse you are right I didn't wish to come across so arrogant, but tbh if we sustain the same level of life and quality as we have now in 30 years I will be very impressed. But these are my predictions/beliefs. But without a doubt we some err... challenging times ahead of us considering we are alreays feeling the begginings of what the world will be without cheap oil. This is but the start. Bring on hydro/fusion/sustainable technology please. I hope it is not too late. People need to stop worrying about climate change and start worrying about what nations will do when there people start to starve/feel hardship.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: 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.