Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 6 of 12  [ 118 posts ]  Go to page « 14 5 6 7 812 »
Author Message
CATZ
Post subject: Re: Advanced Battleship (BBN)Posted: June 21st, 2011, 7:26 am
Offline
Posts: 206
Joined: November 13th, 2010, 9:54 pm
Carnac wrote:
Other then blatant impossibilities in the design, the concept is flawed. In order to save money on shore bombardment, you're building a multi-billion dollar ship. Which also happens to fill exactly no other roles. Meaning if your ship bombards ten beaches in it's lifetime, you'd have spent over a billion dollars per bombarding mission.


Now compare that to the cost of a few tomahawks.
Impossibilities? hardly. I just lack the ability to draw them correctly.

Of course the problem is, is that you don't know what you're talking about. A crippling handicap in this instance to be sure. Bombardment, only has value in proportion to the number of targets, and the ranges involved. So if all your targets are within range, it makes a lot more sense.

Afterall, a lot of missions are bombardment to some extent or another. A bomber dropping bombs is just a different application of said bombardment. It all hinges on how you want to deliver said bombardment and how far away the target is.

As for saving money, it all depends on how much you want to save, and how you want to save it.

The Colonel's thesis is more than enough credibility for me to produce such a design.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Lo ... =ADA481976

So whats flawed here is your way of thinking. Besides, you have to build a platform to launch those cruise missiles. Yet another flaw in your logic.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"


Last edited by CATZ on June 21st, 2011, 7:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
CATZ
Post subject: Re: Advanced Battleship (BBN)Posted: June 21st, 2011, 7:29 am
Offline
Posts: 206
Joined: November 13th, 2010, 9:54 pm
Rodondo wrote:
Well it depends on how perfectly spherical your turrets are, a hard feat really to do even today.
Not really. It would produce a minute difference. Especially since all stealth technology hinges on properly curved surfaces. This is no different.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Carnac
Post subject: Re: Advanced Battleship (BBN)Posted: June 21st, 2011, 12:12 pm
Offline
Posts: 310
Joined: April 28th, 2011, 11:59 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada
The problem is you're assuming there will be high value targets in the future, which with the current warfare is a doubtful proposition. We already have the platforms for the cruise missiles. You would need to have almost a hundred meters beam, possible but not a good idea. You don't have room behind the plates for many of your phased array radars. Besides that, no reactor in the world would power that many expensive, delicate and heavy radars for very long. Your turrets are geometrically impossible, regaurdless of where you took them from. And that raises the question, where do the guns come from? We have no infrastructure for heavy naval artillery, nobody does.

_________________
Probably posting from and iPhone and naval terms befuddle it. If I say a ships' hill, you know what I meant.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Andorianus
Post subject: Re: Advanced Battleship (BBN)Posted: June 21st, 2011, 2:34 pm
Offline
Posts: 160
Joined: May 12th, 2011, 7:19 pm
Location: Apeldoorn, the Netherlands
Really, even for Nationstates I'd prefer missiles or a smaller gun every day. Come to think of that, in NS I use thermobaric warheads on (much smaller) artillery platforms. Should be pretty much the kind of firepower you are aiming for, albeit a tad more expensive (Still much less expensive then a ship like this.) I don't know about feasability IRL however.

But in short, spare the expense. Go for a real ship, not an uber-arsenal ship with Kirovitis. A ship that is really just for shore bombardment should only have a few guns, and maybe some cruise missiles; that would be closer to a frigate.

_________________
You can call me Andy.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
APDAF
Post subject: Re: Advanced Battleship (BBN)Posted: June 21st, 2011, 3:41 pm
Offline
Posts: 1492
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 10:42 am
It is mainly for psychological warfare as a bigger ship looks harder to kill and the more and bigger guns you have the more you can scare and kill.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: Advanced Battleship (BBN)Posted: June 21st, 2011, 4:05 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
APDAF wrote:
It is mainly for psychological warfare as a bigger ship looks harder to kill and the more and bigger guns you have the more you can scare and kill.
Not really. There's no case in recorded history where someone surrendered because of naval gunfire alone.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
TimothyC
Post subject: Re: Advanced Battleship (BBN)Posted: June 21st, 2011, 4:13 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3758
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact: Website
CATZ wrote:
Quote:

The fastest way to saturate an AEGIS ship is to shoot it dry, which you would understand if you bothered to learn about the systems in question.

You're just supporting my reasoning, really.

You really are thick aren't you?

You totally missed my point, and worse, you didn't have the slightest clue that you missed it. It is as if you threw up a wall and anything that you didn't agree with got blocked by the wall.
CATZ wrote:
Besides, I based my design off of my experiences in playing Harpoon 3 & Dangerous Waters, along with what I've learned in just reading on the subjects. Harpoon 3 is actually used by some militaries for training purposes, it's so accurate. So really, I'd say I probably have better experience than you in that regard.

So really I'd say that you're the one in need of learning. Perhaps you should spend more time broadening your experiences on the subject. It's somewhat obvious that being an engineer in training really hasn't made you an expert on naval warfare. I'm not impressed. Sorry Tim.
Other than playing a few games (and GCB is used more than Harpoon 3 is) what are your credentials young Miss? I haven't seen you put any forward.
CATZ wrote:
Quote:
I've heard the following by people in the know - "Zumwalt is what you get when you have a ship designed by electrical engineers, not marine engineers"
Yet the USN is still moving forward with it. :: yawn ::

We'll see how roughly they are unseated when the DDG-1000 is launched. Until then, by all means, you are free to speculate. Since that's all you can really do at this point. I'll take a 1/4th scale model over speculation, even if it is tested on a lake. lolz.
The USN is building three Zumwalts, and after that they are moving back to a regular design. What does that say about the hull form little Miss? Why was the hull form rejected for CG(X)?
CATZ wrote:
And btw Tim, the whole USN is more in the know than you, or anyone you know. I think I'll take their word over you or Stuart Slade. But what we have here is far superior than just a word. They're actually spending billions to produce the ship. Actions...speak louder than words, Tim.
Are you saying that the government hasn't spend billions on boondoggles before?
CATZ wrote:
Quote:
This is why you didn't draw quads.
Actually those spheres are modified Yamato turrets from the parts sheet. I never claimed to be some excellent artist when it comes to ship-bucket ships. If you think you can do better, than do so, and I'll update it with the updated turrets.
Why don't you try again, after all that's the only way to get better. 8-)

_________________
Please don't call me Tim. If you don't want to use Timothy, use TJ.
MATHNET - To Cogitate and to Solve


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
CATZ
Post subject: Re: Advanced Battleship (BBN)Posted: June 21st, 2011, 8:31 pm
Offline
Posts: 206
Joined: November 13th, 2010, 9:54 pm
Quote:
You really are thick aren't you?

You totally missed my point, and worse, you didn't have the slightest clue that you missed it. It is as if you threw up a wall and anything that you didn't agree with got blocked by the wall.
No, you just never had a point.

But of course, you think you do.

Shooting it dry is one type of saturation, true. But the AEGIS system can only engage so many targets at a single time. And with super-sonic missiles, reaction time can in some cases be thirty seconds or less. This can be further complicated if the incoming missiles are approaching from different vectors. In Harpoon 3, this is where the AEGIS system begins to reach it's stressing point. And I have defeated the system through similar tactics applied in varying ways, but ultimately using similar approaches. Yes, this is of course...Harpoon 3. But, it's as close as we can get to understanding the vulnerabilities of the system without access to classified information.

http://wiki.computerharpoon.com/index.p ... stem_in_H3

Harpoon 3 is about as close as we can get to understand the AEGIS system using civilian information.

Like I said, you think you had a point.
Quote:
Other than playing a few games (and GCB is used more than Harpoon 3 is) what are your credentials young Miss? I haven't seen you put any forward.
So you do acknowledge that Harpoon 3 is used for that purpose. Thank you. Thanks for validating that for me.

&

What are your credentials for making you an expert on naval warfare? Being an engineer in training is great. Kudos to you for studying hard to become that. But that puts you no position as an expert on naval warfare. Sorry.
Quote:

The USN is building three Zumwalts, and after that they are moving back to a regular design. What does that say about the hull form little Miss? Why was the hull form rejected for CG(X)?
lol. trying to be snide? Realllllllllly? I stand mollified.

And they are building 1 more over the original 2 they had planned. I'd say that says quite a lot about a ship that was curved to make room for ships that have a higher priority for procurement. So Tim, that says absolutely nothing about the hull form. Especially since the DD(X) isn't intended (nor was it ever really) to replace the Arleigh Burke class.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Carnac
Post subject: Re: Advanced Battleship (BBN)Posted: June 21st, 2011, 8:41 pm
Offline
Posts: 310
Joined: April 28th, 2011, 11:59 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada
I'm not sure about using a game to prove a point. May I pull up Civilization 3, and watch as a spearman defeats a tank?

_________________
Probably posting from and iPhone and naval terms befuddle it. If I say a ships' hill, you know what I meant.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Advanced Battleship (BBN)Posted: June 21st, 2011, 8:45 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7324
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
the aegis system can track 40 targets at the same time, IIRC. let's say half of that. 64+32 cells on an burke. that means you have 96 missiles at least, of which... well, let's say, 40 are air defence. in those 30 seconds of yours, you have to fire 20 or more anti-ship missiles. that means 10 aircraft or 5 FAC's firing AT THE SAME MOMENT to defeat ONE ship. and even then, we have CIWS, which can take out about 5 remaining missiles......

yeah, you maybe can do that in an game. or the ruskies could do that in the cold war. but in modern warfare? I don't think so.

and:
Quote:
Why was the hull form rejected for CG(X)?
you ignored this part, he did not only talk about the zumwalts.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 6 of 12  [ 118 posts ]  Return to “Beginners Only” | Go to page « 14 5 6 7 812 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]