• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obama to Kill Tomahawk, Hellfire Missile Programs

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
norseamd said:
a mon calamari cruiser is worth blowing up but a planet is not
Click to expand...

I don't understand this line of argument. The question was what would win in a Deathstar vs Borg Cube battle.

I'm talking about what these ships can do. It doesn't make sense that the Deathstar would blow up a planet as a strategy for defeating the Borg Cube, or to demoralize the Borg collective.
 
norseamd said:
you are bringing up a highly monetized cruiser with a small gun in comparision to a battleship with 16 to 18 inch guns?
Click to expand...

A Yamato class space battleship with wave motion gun will take out an Iowa class battleship and the entire state of Iowa in a single shot. Surface ships are obsolete. Space carriers equipped with dual wave motion guns, landing capabilities, and flight decks (in space!) put the Yamato class to shame.
 
zinfamous said:
I don't understand this line of argument. The question was what would win in a Deathstar vs Borg Cube battle. I'm talking about what these ships can do. It doesn't make sense that the Deathstar would blow up a planet as a strategy for defeating the Borg Cube, or to demoralize the Borg collective.
Click to expand...

fine

i was just commenting that the whole idea of using the death star to blow up planets was not worth the planets themselves
 
what was the new hope game where you started on overhead view and where either walking around or driving a hovercraft
 
norseamd said:
what do you mean?
Click to expand...

Aside from sea to sea engagements (maybe), the Zumwalt fills more roles with vastly smaller crew and much more precision. Surface engagements are a thing of the past. You can't hit what you can't see, and it will hit you well before you're even in range.
 
Pens1566 said:
Aside from sea to sea engagements (maybe), the Zumwalt fills more roles with vastly smaller crew and much more precision. Surface engagements are a thing of the past. You can't hit what you can't see, and it will hit you well before you're even in range.
Click to expand...

you can reduce the crew requirements of a battleship also.

a lot of the fuss over retiring the battleships actually has to do with shore bombardment

also i want to confirm this. is it true that aircraft carriers have little space for command and control equipment. they have tiny islands and are full of deck space so this might some sense
 
Pens1566 said:
Aside from sea to sea engagements (maybe), the Zumwalt fills more roles with vastly smaller crew and much more precision. Surface engagements are a thing of the past. You can't hit what you can't see, and it will hit you well before you're even in range.
Click to expand...

I see a Star Trek movie in the future for the Zumwalt.
 
norseamd said:
you can reduce the crew requirements of a battleship also.

a lot of the fuss over retiring the battleships actually has to do with shore bombardment

also i want to confirm this. is it true that aircraft carriers have little space for command and control equipment. they have tiny islands and are full of deck space so this might some sense
Click to expand...

I'd love to see the proof or reasoning behind this. They're behemoths that require a huge amount of human resources to operate. Even with the 80s retrofit, the crew was like 10x what a zumwalt will need.
 
norseamd said:
also i want to confirm this. is it true that aircraft carriers have little space for command and control equipment. they have tiny islands and are full of deck space so this might some sense
Click to expand...

i don't know why you would think this.


there's no reason that CIC has to be in the island, and a lot of reasons why they shouldn't. they're usually buried somewhere so that they're difficult to take out.
 
Pens1566 said:
I'd love to see the proof or reasoning behind this. They're behemoths that require a huge amount of human resources to operate. Even with the 80s retrofit, the crew was like 10x what a zumwalt will need.
Click to expand...

they did it with the next generation aircraft carriers

not saying you could do it with the iowa class battleships

we are talking about a 21st century designed battleship class
 
ElFenix said:
i don't know why you would think this. there's no reason that CIC has to be in the island, and a lot of reasons why they shouldn't. they're usually buried somewhere so that they're difficult to take out.
Click to expand...

but they also need room for all those jets

remember reading it somewhere on some military site

might have been a battleship proponet

still any one ship class is not better than any other

a battleship would still serve a useful role in a navy
 
Texashiker said:
We have to make cuts somewhere to pay for welfare. Can not raise taxes on fortune 500 or people like Warren Buffet. So lets just cut national defense.
Click to expand...

Oh brother. 60% of your federal taxes goes to the war machine. Have to make the cuts somewhere.

What the hell do we need these missiles for anyway? We have nukes. A lot of nukes.

Or maybe you're more worried about our ability to continue protecting the old "American Interests". 🙄
 
norseamd said:
they did it with the next generation aircraft carriers

not saying you could do it with the iowa class battleships

we are talking about a 21st century designed battleship class
Click to expand...

You can do anything you want with a platform that doesn't exist. I choose the death star. I win.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top