Most powerful warship in the world?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
A

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0

Link.

That's the new class of Royal Navy destroyer, the article claims it is the most powerful warship in the world, but how could it be? Surely any old nuclear submarine would be much more deadly... or one of those massive American aircraft carriers... It does mention

... Principal Anti-Air Missile System, which can trace and destroy hostile objects as small a cricket ball travelling at three times the speed of sound. Its range is effective over a radius of several hundred miles.
Click to expand...

so maybe they're not worried about aircraft...
 
Bateluer

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
Meh. The two most powerful ocean going vessels would be Carriers and Submarines. Battleships haven't ruled the waves since WW2.
 
Fenixgoon

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
31,574
9,953
136
i would say the US is going to have it. for example, our new destroyers will be fitted with a GPS guided cannon that fires 5'' shells accurately up to 54 miles:Q

either those or a US aircraft carrier. mind you that our carriers can hold 100+ planes

oh, and 1 of our warships will probably cost more than that entire fleet :D (3 B2 spirit bombers and we're already there :D)
 
E

everman

Lifer
Nov 5, 2002
11,288
1
0
A loaded nuclear missile sub is still king, and probably always will be.

oh and actually Atlantis is the most powerful in the world. It is a ship, someone forgot that :p
 
E

EyeMWing

Banned
Jun 13, 2003
15,670
1
0
I believe they were looking for firepower, and limiting them to surface ships with nonnuclear payloads. Aircarft carriers themselves are quite benign, and are only the bad mothas they are because of the ships they crusie around with and the air force that they haul around.

... And this is a pretty easy prize to claim now that the Iowas are all gone :p
 
I

iwantanewcomputer

Diamond Member
Apr 4, 2004
5,045
0
0
i don't see anything particullarly impressive. I would assume that a us aircraft carrier could send 1 f22 at it and launch a long range torpedo, turn and fly back without being seen on radar
 
So

So

Lifer
Jul 2, 2001
25,921
14
81
Originally posted by: EyeMWing
I believe they were looking for firepower, and limiting them to surface ships with nonnuclear payloads. Aircarft carriers themselves are quite benign, and are only the bad mothas they are because of the ships they crusie around with and the air force that they haul around.

... And this is a pretty easy prize to claim now that the Iowas are all gone :p
Click to expand...


They're not gone, just mothballed...at least, last I'd heard.
 
So

So

Lifer
Jul 2, 2001
25,921
14
81
Oh, and damn...sounds like a big improvement over the sail and rig days:

Mess decks are replaced by individual cabins, each with their own I-pod charging points, CD player, internet access, five channel recreational audio and larger berths.
Click to expand...
 
Fenixgoon

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
31,574
9,953
136
let's see how that 230 crew ship does vs. my 5000 man floating city of a carrier (with an airforce on it, of course) :D
 
E

EyeMWing

Banned
Jun 13, 2003
15,670
1
0
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: EyeMWing
I believe they were looking for firepower, and limiting them to surface ships with nonnuclear payloads. Aircarft carriers themselves are quite benign, and are only the bad mothas they are because of the ships they crusie around with and the air force that they haul around.

... And this is a pretty easy prize to claim now that the Iowas are all gone :p
Click to expand...


They're not gone, just mothballed...at least, last I'd heard.
Click to expand...

Heh, pulling those things out would be... A very difficult and costly task, and I can't see us doing it, barring WW3. It's just like saying that the planes sitting in the boneyard at Davis Monthan AFB aren't gone - because they could be reactivated in a time of extreme desperation.
 
J

jagec

Lifer
Apr 30, 2004
24,442
6
81
Originally posted by: EyeMWing
I believe they were looking for firepower, and limiting them to surface ships with nonnuclear payloads. Aircarft carriers themselves are quite benign, and are only the bad mothas they are because of the ships they crusie around with and the air force that they haul around.

... And this is a pretty easy prize to claim now that the Iowas are all gone :p
Click to expand...

Yeah, exactly. Carriers are amazingly powerful, but TECHNICALLY it's not the carrier proper that's wielding all that firepower...

Mess decks are replaced by individual cabins, each with their own I-pod charging points, CD player, internet access, five channel recreational audio and larger berths.
Click to expand...
Good thing the US already has a weapon to cripple their offensive capability...the addictive power of ATOT!
 
GagHalfrunt

GagHalfrunt

Lifer
Apr 19, 2001
25,297
2,000
126
Originally posted by: Atheus

Link.

That's the new class of Royal Navy destroyer, the article claims it is the most powerful warship in the world, but how could it be? Surely any old nuclear submarine would be much more deadly... or one of those massive American aircraft carriers... It does mention

... Principal Anti-Air Missile System, which can trace and destroy hostile objects as small a cricket ball travelling at three times the speed of sound. Its range is effective over a radius of several hundred miles.
Click to expand...

so maybe they're not worried about aircraft...
Click to expand...


Any anti-aircraft system, no matter how sophisticated, can be overwhelmed if it's given too many targets. Just because it functions flawlessly against 5 inbounds doesn't mean it can handle 20 planes each launching 4 missiles.
 
A

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
Originally posted by: iwantanewcomputer
i don't see anything particullarly impressive. I would assume that a us aircraft carrier could send 1 f22 at it and launch a long range torpedo, turn and fly back without being seen on radar
Click to expand...

I think the main point is the radar and anti-aircraft systems, so that would probably be exactly the wrong way to go about it.
 
ElFenix

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
Originally posted by: So
Oh, and damn...sounds like a big improvement over the sail and rig days:

Mess decks are replaced by individual cabins, each with their own I-pod charging points, CD player, internet access, five channel recreational audio and larger berths.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

sounds nicer than my house
 
C

coomar

Banned
Apr 4, 2005
2,431
0
0
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
i would say the US is going to have it. for example, our new destroyers will be fitted with a GPS guided cannon that fires 5'' shells accurately up to 54 miles:Q

either those or a US aircraft carrier. mind you that our carriers can hold 100+ planes

oh, and 1 of our warships will probably cost more than that entire fleet :D (3 B2 spirit bombers and we're already there :D)
Click to expand...


aren't B2's only deployed in missouri
 
EagleKeeper

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: iwantanewcomputer
i don't see anything particullarly impressive. I would assume that a us aircraft carrier could send 1 f22 at it and launch a long range torpedo, turn and fly back without being seen on radar
Click to expand...

Better review what the F22 is capable of.
1) It will never get off the carrier.
2) ...


 
Z

Zugzwang152

Lifer
Oct 30, 2001
12,134
1
0
HMS Daring's 230-strong crew should be happy too. She and her sisters will be the first "gender-neutral" warships to enter Royal Navy service, and the Hotel Facilities, as the living quarters are known, are the most opulent ever fitted in a British warship. Mess decks are replaced by individual cabins, each with their own I-pod charging points, CD player, internet access, five channel recreational audio and larger berths.
Click to expand...


sign me up!
 
P

Pacfanweb

Lifer
Jan 2, 2000
13,149
57
91
Originally posted by: EyeMWing
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: EyeMWing
I believe they were looking for firepower, and limiting them to surface ships with nonnuclear payloads. Aircarft carriers themselves are quite benign, and are only the bad mothas they are because of the ships they crusie around with and the air force that they haul around.

... And this is a pretty easy prize to claim now that the Iowas are all gone :p
Click to expand...


They're not gone, just mothballed...at least, last I'd heard.
Click to expand...

Heh, pulling those things out would be... A very difficult and costly task, and I can't see us doing it, barring WW3. It's just like saying that the planes sitting in the boneyard at Davis Monthan AFB aren't gone - because they could be reactivated in a time of extreme desperation.
Click to expand...
Actually, the Wisconsin and Iowa could be back in the fleet in less than 2 years.
They've been in Category B reserve for quite awhile now, which is supposed to mean they could be reactivated in 6 months.

Unfortunately, just recently the President signed an order that would strike both from the naval register and put them up for adoption as museum ships.

Pretty dumb, since we won't have anything to come close to replacing them until 2013.

Personally, I wish they were still active. I think it was a huge mistake to deactivate any of the Iowas, even though they are costly to operate.
There is just no sight on the water as impressive as a battleship, not even carriers.
They are just as impressive to potential enemies, too.
One of the main things that the Vietcong demanded happen before they would return to the negotiations was that the New Jersey be removed from off Vietnam's coast....they were scared to death of her. Not the carriers...the New Jersey. Plus, something like 75% of the targets in North Korea are in range of 16" guns, and that's if we don't even update them with new shells to fire farther.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom