Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 7 of 12  [ 118 posts ]  Go to page « 15 6 7 8 912 »
Author Message
CATZ
Post subject: Re: Advanced Battleship (BBN)Posted: June 21st, 2011, 8:46 pm
Offline
Posts: 206
Joined: November 13th, 2010, 9:54 pm
Quote:
We have no infrastructure for heavy naval artillery, nobody does.
It's for an AU.

But either way, establishing infrastructure for such a thing would be no different than establishing infrastructure for any other ship part. If you need it, you build it.
Quote:
The problem is you're assuming there will be high value targets in the future, which with the current warfare is a doubtful proposition.
I'm not assuming anything. Everything I used for design considerations came from the Colonel's thesis.
Quote:
You would need to have almost a hundred meters beam, possible but not a good idea.
Not at all. Where do you come up with these wild assumptions? Wouldn't even need half that.
Quote:
You don't have room behind the plates for many of your phased array radars.
Sure it does. I moved the arm launchers that Thiel noted could be an issue. Other than that, the arrays have a little more room for placement than a Burke does.
Quote:
Besides that, no reactor in the world would power that many expensive, delicate and heavy radars for very long.
Sure they could. That was discussed a couple pages ago. Takes about 14-15 MW. So about 2.5 times the radar capacity of a Burke (and it's power usage for said radars).
Quote:
Your turrets are geometrically impossible, regaurdless of where you took them from.
Again, you don't know what your talking about. There's nothing geometrically impossible about them.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
CATZ
Post subject: Re: Advanced Battleship (BBN)Posted: June 21st, 2011, 8:49 pm
Offline
Posts: 206
Joined: November 13th, 2010, 9:54 pm
Quote:
Why was the hull form rejected for CG(X)?


Yes, but tracking isn't the same as engaging.

And I didn't ignore it at all, it was just a pointless proposition since the entire cruiser was cancelled.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
CATZ
Post subject: Re: Advanced Battleship (BBN)Posted: June 21st, 2011, 8:51 pm
Offline
Posts: 206
Joined: November 13th, 2010, 9:54 pm
Carnac wrote:
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?
http://h3milsim.com/

http://www.computerharpoon.com/about-ag ... rpoon.html

That's about Harpoon 3's milspec, which the Australian navy has used for training.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Advanced Battleship (BBN)Posted: June 21st, 2011, 8:54 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7497
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
and now you ignore my entire post. btw, an game and once colonel is not what I call good sources, for which you can discard people with quite a lot experience, including an naval (defence) analist.

_________________
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.
Shipbucket Wiki admin


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
CATZ
Post subject: Re: Advanced Battleship (BBN)Posted: June 21st, 2011, 8:56 pm
Offline
Posts: 206
Joined: November 13th, 2010, 9:54 pm
acelanceloet wrote:
and now you ignore my entire post. btw, an game and once colonel is not what I call good sources, for which you can discard people with quite a lot experience, including an naval (defence) analist.
That Colonel wrote that thesis to complete his training as an analyst for Joint-Fires strategy and deployment. I'd say that gives him more than enough creditability.

And I ignored nothing about your post. As you noticed, I pointed out that tracking and engaging are two different things. In order for your scenario to be relevant, it'd have to track and engage 20+ targets at the same time. And that doesn't include the time it takes for it to lock and compute.

You also have to remember that the BBN is a different concept than the BB(X). That's why they are in different threads.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
TimothyC
Post subject: Re: Advanced Battleship (BBN)Posted: June 21st, 2011, 8:59 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3765
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact: Website
CATZ wrote:
<Snip BS by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about>
Yes the saturation level for AEGIS is classified, but in all likelihood it's set by the back-end, not the dielectric face. Anyone who says they know what he saturation level is is full of it.
CATZ wrote:
So you do acknowledge that Harpoon 3 is used for that purpose. Thank you. Thanks for validating that for me.
Was used, by Thailand. As far as I know they've switched over the Global Conflict Blue.
CATZ wrote:
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.
It means that I have a technical background from which to evaluate statements and designs. What background do you have?
CATZ wrote:
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.
And 29 less than the original plans called for, so yeah, it does say something about the hull form that it isn't being pursued outside of a small run of ships that will probably end up as test ships for most if not all of their lives.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Advanced Battleship (BBN)Posted: June 21st, 2011, 9:01 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7497
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
I was talking about engaging. ow and I forgot to say that the attack has to come from different directions as well, because otherwise the illimunators can track more then one target at the same time. and that gives the CIWS more chances.
and that colonel is still 1 person. 1 vs many.... hmm.....
he might have a point on some things, but everything written by just one person means there is opinion in it. and that it is readable for the public, and not confidential, shows that most likely that opinion is not the one of the US navy, but just his conclusion.

_________________
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.
Shipbucket Wiki admin


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
KimWerner
Post subject: Re: Advanced Battleship (BBN)Posted: June 22nd, 2011, 3:05 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2195
Joined: December 22nd, 2010, 12:13 pm
Location: Denmark
Thiel wrote:
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.
Oh, yes! The british bombardment of Copenhagen in 1807 ;)

_________________
Work in progress:
DD County Class PNS Babur (1982)(PAK)
FF Type 21 Class D182 PNS Babur (2000)(PAK)
All relevant Coat of Arms


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: Advanced Battleship (BBN)Posted: June 22nd, 2011, 3:15 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
KimWerner wrote:
Thiel wrote:
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.
Oh, yes! The british bombardment of Copenhagen in 1807 ;)
Like I said, nobody has surrendered to Naval gunfire alone. Copenhagen were encircled by the British Army and the only Danish army units, mostly levy troops, within reach were defeated while on the march. The rest of the Army were far away in souther Jutland preparing to defend us against Napoleon if that were to become necessary and wouldn't be able to return to Zealand until winter when the Belts froze over.

_________________
“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]
KimWerner
Post subject: Re: Advanced Battleship (BBN)Posted: June 22nd, 2011, 3:50 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2195
Joined: December 22nd, 2010, 12:13 pm
Location: Denmark
Thiel wrote:
Not really. There's no case in recorded history where someone surrendered because of naval gunfire alone.
Oh, yes! The british bombardment of Copenhagen in 1807 ;)
Thiel wrote:
Like I said, nobody has surrendered to Naval gunfire alone. Copenhagen were encircled by the British Army and the only Danish army units, mostly levy troops, within reach were defeated while on the march. The rest of the Army were far away in souther Jutland preparing to defend us against Napoleon if that were to become necessary and wouldn't be able to return to Zealand until winter when the Belts froze over.
Sorry, I missed the word "naval", but for sure it was the bombardment from both sea and land - used as a weapon of terror - that forced the capitulation. ;)

_________________
Work in progress:
DD County Class PNS Babur (1982)(PAK)
FF Type 21 Class D182 PNS Babur (2000)(PAK)
All relevant Coat of Arms


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 7 of 12  [ 118 posts ]  Return to “Beginners Only” | Go to page « 15 6 7 8 912 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 63 guests


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


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