Most powerful warship in the world?

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: Atomicus
Andromeda w/ Lexa Doig as the ship's AI avatar FTW

*drool*

That girl is HOT

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

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.

We don't need anything to replace them, their role doesn't really exist anymore. They were used in Desert Storm mostly to show them being used. Lots of smaller and less expensive ships can launch Tomahawks and Harpoons now and the role of ship-to-shore gunnery has been taken over by aircraft which are far more accurate and flexible. Why on earth would you lug a battleship halfway around the world just to launch missiles which a destroyer could handle or bombard shorelines which attack planes could handle? There's a reason EVERYONE on earth stopped building battleships after WWII. They were proven to be worthless. The battleship has as much place in modern warfare as the bow and arrow do. They lived far too long because some admirals were hopeless romantics like yourself and invented jobs for them to do rather than retire them for good.

 

[Cooler]

Originally posted by: thehstrybean

Originally posted by: Zim Hosein

Most powerful warship in the world?

Asgard Mothership FTW!

True, but they haven't been seen much lately...I vote for the new Odyssey or the Orion...Ancient battleship FTW!!

Death Star > Asgard Mothership

 

[Chompman]

Originally posted by: Cooler

Originally posted by: thehstrybean

Originally posted by: Zim Hosein

Most powerful warship in the world?

Asgard Mothership FTW!

True, but they haven't been seen much lately...I vote for the new Odyssey or the Orion...Ancient battleship FTW!!

Death Star > Asgard Mothership

X-wing> Death Star > Asgard Mothership

Think about it.

 

[deftron]

Canada's

 

[Zim Hosein]

Originally posted by: deftron
Canada's

LMFAO :laugh:

Cheers deftron :beer:

 

[Minerva]

Carnival Ecstasy.

Read the story :Q

A ship that breaks its leash like a rottweiler is 1337.

Until 2009 then this comes along. Hawaii will no longer be the surfing capitol of the world. Just wait for this leviathan to go by; the waves will knock down buildings. Better keep her away from NOLA. -M

 

[ed21x]

well, because American Naval vessels are more designed for specific roles in functioning within a carrier batlegroup, they are more capable of doing one thing, and doing it well. We have AB destroyersfor anti-air, frigates mainly for anti-submarine warfare, and corvettes for littoral combat, etc... but this UK ship seems to be more jack of all trades, and their philosophy does not revolve around a cluster ships protecting a carrier.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Why on earth would you lug a battleship halfway around the world just to launch missiles which a destroyer could handle or bombard shorelines which attack planes could handle? There's a reason EVERYONE on earth stopped building battleships after WWII. They were proven to be worthless. The battleship has as much place in modern warfare as the bow and arrow do. They lived far too long because some admirals were hopeless romantics like yourself and invented jobs for them to do rather than retire them for good.

Their utility is in their 16" guns. They could bombard the enemy 20+ miles away with shells that weighed 2700 lbs. While the Tomahawk missiles have much longer range, they only pack half the punch and are extremely expensive. The rounds for a cannon are relatively cheap.

If the enemy had lots of air-defenses but not much of an airforce, a battleship would be a good choice. Other ships might be more versatile but more expensive to operate due to the types of weapons.

 

[AbAbber2k]

I'm guessing when the navy's new experiments are unvieled, their new destroyer will be the talk of the town. Stealth technology and some rediculous new armament. Experimental railgun technology anyone? The new technology theoretically will let them arc shells into the atmosphere to bombard targets 200 miles away. Pretty killer stuff.

Google the DD(X) Destroyer for some more info.

 

[maddogchen]

First: I don't think a submarine is classified under warship. submarines are not ships

Second: "Navy launches deadliest and most expensive warship" Its a UK article so its saying the UK Navy launches its deadliest and most expensive warship. Not of the world, of the UK.

 

[IAteYourMother]

yay,

The two top Navies in the world are allies

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
We don't need anything to replace them, their role doesn't really exist anymore. They were used in Desert Storm mostly to show them being used. Lots of smaller and less expensive ships can launch Tomahawks and Harpoons now and the role of ship-to-shore gunnery has been taken over by aircraft which are far more accurate and flexible. Why on earth would you lug a battleship halfway around the world just to launch missiles which a destroyer could handle or bombard shorelines which attack planes could handle? There's a reason EVERYONE on earth stopped building battleships after WWII. They were proven to be worthless. The battleship has as much place in modern warfare as the bow and arrow do. They lived far too long because some admirals were hopeless romantics like yourself and invented jobs for them to do rather than retire them for good.

They are the most survivable ships in the world. They can take multiple missle hits and stay on station.
We don't have jobs for them? Ever heard of "showing the flag"? That is nearly as important as actual fighting. Nothing does this better than a battleship.
I have a picture somewhere of the USS Missouri making a visit to Australia. They shoreline is freaking PACKED with people trying to get a glimpse of her.
Think they do that if any other ship comes to visit?

Did you know that it would take two carriers launching full strikes something like 12 hours to get as much ordinance to the target as a battleship could do in just a few?
Did you also stop to think that a battleship is an all-weather platform? And shells can get there faster than planes can. They are much cheaper, and don't risk a highly-trained pilot's life.
There are plenty of uses for battleships. We don't do any big amphibious invasions now...and we couldn't if we wanted to. No fire support. No ship currently in the fleet can sit offshore and survive if we wanted to invade, say..North Korea or China.
We'd find another way I'm sure, but not having fire support simply takes a major amphibious assault off the table.
The USMC's stated public opinion, until they caved to political pressure last year, was that they wanted the battleships back and there is no significant fire support in the fleet now.
Privately, they would still want them back....and I'd think they are the best ones to ask whether this type of support is needed or not.

And you are dead wrong about battleships being worthless. If they were, then we wouldn't have recommissioned the other three Iowas for Korea. And we wouldn't have reactivated New Jersey for 'Nam. The VC were deathly afraid of her.
And we wouldn't have reactivated all four Iowas in the 80's.
And the Russians built basically modern-day battleships with the Kirov class back in the 80's.
The British desparately needed at least one battleship for bombardment in the Falkland Islands war.
And the list goes on.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
First: I don't think a submarine is classified under warship. submarines are not ships

Yeah, they are. They operate solely in the water, and are owned by the Navy. What else could they be?

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

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

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

He meant F-35.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Why on earth would you lug a battleship halfway around the world just to launch missiles which a destroyer could handle or bombard shorelines which attack planes could handle? There's a reason EVERYONE on earth stopped building battleships after WWII. They were proven to be worthless. The battleship has as much place in modern warfare as the bow and arrow do. They lived far too long because some admirals were hopeless romantics like yourself and invented jobs for them to do rather than retire them for good.

Their utility is in their 16" guns. They could bombard the enemy 20+ miles away with shells that weighed 2700 lbs. While the Tomahawk missiles have much longer range, they only pack half the punch and are extremely expensive. The rounds for a cannon are relatively cheap.

If the enemy had lots of air-defenses but not much of an airforce, a battleship would be a good choice. Other ships might be more versatile but more expensive to operate due to the types of weapons.

So what? A 2700 pound shell with a range of 20 miles? That's EXACTLY why they're worthless. An F/A 18 Super Hornet can carry an entire broadside over a range of 900 miles unfueled, virtually unlimited with A/A refueling and actually hit something. Battleships made a lot of noise and kicked a lot of dirt in the air, but their guns were not accurate and needed to pump a constant barrage on a target to have even minimal effect. Battleships are like dinosaurs, huge, slow, one-dimensional and now extinct because they could not adapt to a changing world. There is nothing a battleship can do that a carrier and a couple of destroyers could not do 1000% better.

 

[coomar]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Why on earth would you lug a battleship halfway around the world just to launch missiles which a destroyer could handle or bombard shorelines which attack planes could handle? There's a reason EVERYONE on earth stopped building battleships after WWII. They were proven to be worthless. The battleship has as much place in modern warfare as the bow and arrow do. They lived far too long because some admirals were hopeless romantics like yourself and invented jobs for them to do rather than retire them for good.

Their utility is in their 16" guns. They could bombard the enemy 20+ miles away with shells that weighed 2700 lbs. While the Tomahawk missiles have much longer range, they only pack half the punch and are extremely expensive. The rounds for a cannon are relatively cheap.

If the enemy had lots of air-defenses but not much of an airforce, a battleship would be a good choice. Other ships might be more versatile but more expensive to operate due to the types of weapons.

So what? A 2700 pound shell with a range of 20 miles? That's EXACTLY why they're worthless. An F/A 18 Super Hornet can carry an entire broadside over a range of 900 miles unfueled, virtually unlimited with A/A refueling and actually hit something. Battleships made a lot of noise and kicked a lot of dirt in the air, but their guns were not accurate and needed to pump a constant barrage on a target to have even minimal effect. Battleships are like dinosaurs, huge, slow, one-dimensional and now extinct because they could not adapt to a changing world. There is nothing a battleship can do that a carrier and a couple of destroyers could not do 1000% better.

read the wikipedia article on the IOWA class:
Although there are now no active battleships in any navy, the United States Navy still maintains two mothballed battleships?Iowa and Wisconsin?and could recommission one or both of them if needed. Since the 1950s the United States battle doctrine has called for air superiority, which clearly favors the aircraft carrier, but other weapons such as guided missile ships and destroyers also play a significant role. In addition, cannon-fired shells have become exceedingly accurate thanks to guided shells, as well as longer range due to improved shell technology (including rocket boosting) and better cannons. For targets within range of the ships' cannons, it is cheaper to fire and harder to stop shells than either missiles or aircraft strikes. The 16-inch (406 mm) guns of the Iowa?if equipped with guided shells?would offer a cost-benefit ratio potentially rivaling an aircraft strike for targets along the coast, and even firing the older shells would have similar accuracy to many types of aircraft bombing strikes.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: coomar
For targets within range of the ships' cannons, it is cheaper to fire and harder to stop shells than either missiles or aircraft strikes. The 16-inch (406 mm) guns of the Iowa?if equipped with guided shells?would offer a cost-benefit ratio potentially rivaling an aircraft strike for targets along the coast, and even firing the older shells would have similar accuracy to many types of aircraft bombing strikes.[/b][/i]

And for the 1% of the land mass in the world that's within the range of a battleships guns that's a real selling point.

 

[KillerCharlie]

Battleships just do not have the flexibility and versatility for the modern battlefield. If they did they'd still be in use.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

And for the 1% of the land mass in the world that's within the range of a battleships guns that's a real selling point.

Actually, if you study geography, you'll find that most cities are along the water. I'd say that the vast majority of the cities are along either a lake, a river, or an ocean.

Let's say you live in California... a Battleship would have San Diego, Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Jose, San Francisco and Fremont in range from the ocean/bay, and even Sacramento is in range via a river.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

And for the 1% of the land mass in the world that's within the range of a battleships guns that's a real selling point.

Got numbers to back that up?

If you eliminate stuff that we would never need to blast the sh!t out of (our own land, essentially unpopulated areas, etc.) that number would go up quite a bit. Plus you have to consider where the potential targets are located, odds are there is a fair concentration near coastlines.

Viper GTS

 

[Vonkhan]

The brits love to surround themselves with dillusions of grandeur from a century ago Most powerful warship in the worlded ... ye, right ... lol

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: coomar
For targets within range of the ships' cannons, it is cheaper to fire and harder to stop shells than either missiles or aircraft strikes. The 16-inch (406 mm) guns of the Iowa?if equipped with guided shells?would offer a cost-benefit ratio potentially rivaling an aircraft strike for targets along the coast, and even firing the older shells would have similar accuracy to many types of aircraft bombing strikes.[/b][/i]

And for the 1% of the land mass in the world that's within the range of a battleships guns that's a real selling point.

Some of that 1% is the most important real estate in the world. Commerce choke points like the Strait of Hormuz, Strait of Malacca, Suez, and others would require gunnery to effectively knock out a bunch of threats along them.

Battleships are also about the only ships in our inventory that can take hits from anti-ship missiles and still operate (thanks to their exceptionally thick steel armor relative to current naval constuction). Also, the Iowas are not slow. They can do 32+ knots on 1940's technology.

 

[Raduque]

Originally posted by: Atomicus
Andromeda w/ Lexa Doig as the ship's AI avatar FTW

*drool*

QFT :thumbsup:

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: coomar
For targets within range of the ships' cannons, it is cheaper to fire and harder to stop shells than either missiles or aircraft strikes. The 16-inch (406 mm) guns of the Iowa?if equipped with guided shells?would offer a cost-benefit ratio potentially rivaling an aircraft strike for targets along the coast, and even firing the older shells would have similar accuracy to many types of aircraft bombing strikes.[/b][/i]

And for the 1% of the land mass in the world that's within the range of a battleships guns that's a real selling point.

Some of that 1% is the most important real estate in the world. Commerce choke points like the Strait of Hormuz, Strait of Malacca, Suez, and others would require gunnery to effectively knock out a bunch of threats along them.

Battleships are also about the only ships in our inventory that can take hits from anti-ship missiles and still operate (thanks to their exceptionally thick steel armor relative to current naval constuction). Also, the Iowas are not slow. They can do 32+ knots on 1940's technology.

nuclear powered battleships ftw

Battleships are definitely not out of date... they can pound the fvck out of any coastal city, which is most defnitely over 1% of the population/landmass I do believe... they have the durability and are kind of like the standard bearer for the US Navy. Carriers themselves are relatively vulnerable to airstrikes and other ships, while the battleship is pretty much a friggin beast. Not to say the Carrier is a beast, and is probably the most versatile/powerful warship, but the battleship has its place in the Navy