·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Embassy Attacks
Embassy AttacksFollow
do you have a 6 Disc CD changer by any chance?
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
Man, now they're attacking British emabssies, and we don't have a single battleship!
I just don't know how to respond.
I just don't know how to respond.
Last time I checked we still had Trident armed submarines. We should park them in the Gulf.
Actually don't we have 20 or so destroyers & frigates? H
Edited, Sep 15th 2012 12:03am by Nilatai
Why? Does anyone think obama would use them?
Wasn't actually talking about the US Navy there champ. Do try to keep up.
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
Man, now they're attacking British emabssies, and we don't have a single battleship!
I just don't know how to respond.
I just don't know how to respond.
Last time I checked we still had Trident armed submarines. We should park them in the Gulf.
Actually don't we have 20 or so destroyers & frigates? H
Edited, Sep 15th 2012 12:03am by Nilatai
Why? Does anyone think obama would use them?
lolretard
Kavekk wrote:
Man, now they're attacking British emabssies, and we don't have a single battleship!
I just don't know how to respond.
I just don't know how to respond.
Admiral Nelson would be appalled.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
The Spanish really got their timing off.
What would you even fight with a battleship in this day and age, Kavekk?
One of the navies you'd lose wholesale to, or one of the ones you can beat with a missile frigate?
One of the navies you'd lose wholesale to, or one of the ones you can beat with a missile frigate?
Just as Planned.
Timelordwho wrote:
What would you even fight with a battleship in this day and age, Kavekk?
One of the navies you'd lose wholesale to, or one of the ones you can beat with a missile frigate?
One of the navies you'd lose wholesale to, or one of the ones you can beat with a missile frigate?
I hear that giant plastic pegs are very effective against them.
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100
"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100
"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
Not even the US is fielding battleships, at least until the atomic railgun program is complete.
Just as Planned.
Timelordwho wrote:
What would you even fight with a battleship in this day and age, Kavekk?
One of the navies you'd lose wholesale to, or one of the ones you can beat with a missile frigate?
One of the navies you'd lose wholesale to, or one of the ones you can beat with a missile frigate?
Battleships are still great for ordinance delivery to shore targets. I'd rather send a $3,000 16" shell at a target and obliterate it into a large crater than send a $1,000,000 cruise missile to do the same thing. The naval rail gun project has a working gun, it shoots, it stands up to repeated shootings without destroying the barrel, and it would be very cost effective to operate. Now that the panama canal has been dredged to "post panamax" standards, they should dust off the Montana class battleship plans, update them, put the whole thing on a ford class aircraft carrier hull form with a few extra A1B reactors, and then give it to the marines. Armor the crap out of it to guard against conventional shipkillers, don't worry about nukes because if someone nukes your navy, it's ww-III anyways and the missiles will do the rest. You have something that could put 12 16-19" shells down range every 15 seconds, with a magazine that can't explode, and with an ammo cost of approximatly whatever a handful of scrap engine blocks costs these days per shot. I like airplanes. I like missiles because they fly, Drones are neat too. But we should be building one really expensive battleship rather than flying 30 equally expensive aircraft to do the same job at 80 times the cost.
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Not when a hundred light drone strikes do the job!
Sock or troll, this guy is pretty much
standard.
Sock or troll, this guy is pretty much
standard.Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I don't get the point in trying to act like you're varus. Unless it's your ultimate goal in life to mildly annoy and/or bore people I guess.
(Re:kao)
Littoral ships do that for much cheaper.
After tuning the tech and increasing production numbers, drones will be more affordable for inland small ops targets. Which makes much smaller drone carriers viable.
There is realistically no place for conventional battleships at present.
Once we have strong railguns, they will have a role for sustained barrage fire, but they will require nicer AA/sub screening ships, otherwise they are much too vulnerable.
This is all assuming we don't go the heavy distributed support direction like we have with our airforce; which would look something like a primarily electric craft,
composing of single railgun destroyers, ultralight drone carriers, and nuclear generator ships fitted with additional detection/comm eq) to fuel the rest. The obvious hole here is AA, but current ACCs with fielded with something much better against sukhois than JSFs; ie dedicated AA craft. Current DARPA R&D points to light laser strikers with heavier BVR missile support. This strategic direction has the advantage of requiring very little resupply, along with deployment flexibility.
Littoral ships do that for much cheaper.
After tuning the tech and increasing production numbers, drones will be more affordable for inland small ops targets. Which makes much smaller drone carriers viable.
There is realistically no place for conventional battleships at present.
Once we have strong railguns, they will have a role for sustained barrage fire, but they will require nicer AA/sub screening ships, otherwise they are much too vulnerable.
This is all assuming we don't go the heavy distributed support direction like we have with our airforce; which would look something like a primarily electric craft,
composing of single railgun destroyers, ultralight drone carriers, and nuclear generator ships fitted with additional detection/comm eq) to fuel the rest. The obvious hole here is AA, but current ACCs with fielded with something much better against sukhois than JSFs; ie dedicated AA craft. Current DARPA R&D points to light laser strikers with heavier BVR missile support. This strategic direction has the advantage of requiring very little resupply, along with deployment flexibility.
Just as Planned.
Quote:
What compass would he have if he had to manage a major crisis?
Don't worry, his smirk will save us all!
crazylegz1975 wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
do you have a 6 Disc CD changer by any chance?
What are you babbling about? Maybe my English isn't what it should be. It's like you people are speaking English but it's like your talking in some kind gay liberal code. I suppose that's a good thing if I knew what you were talking about I'd probably think obama's great as well. Well one things certain; it's all bushes fault.
The lady doth protest too much. Not varus, but definitely someone who's familiar with him.
Democracy is a total disaster, but it's marginally better than the alternative.
Just as Planned.
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Better? How is radical islam conquering our once allies better for us?
...or maybe you're talking strictly about a religious movement?
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
What would you even fight with a battleship in this day and age, Kavekk?
One of the navies you'd lose wholesale to, or one of the ones you can beat with a missile frigate?
One of the navies you'd lose wholesale to, or one of the ones you can beat with a missile frigate?
Battleships are still great for ordinance delivery to shore targets. I'd rather send a $3,000 16" shell at a target and obliterate it into a large crater than send a $1,000,000 cruise missile to do the same thing. The naval rail gun project has a working gun, it shoots, it stands up to repeated shootings without destroying the barrel, and it would be very cost effective to operate. Now that the panama canal has been dredged to "post panamax" standards, they should dust off the Montana class battleship plans, update them, put the whole thing on a ford class aircraft carrier hull form with a few extra A1B reactors, and then give it to the marines. Armor the crap out of it to guard against conventionaal shipkillers, don't worry about nukes because if someone nukes your navy, it's ww-III anyways and the missiles will do the rest. You have something that could put 12 16-19" shells down range every 15 seconds, with a magazine that can't explode, and with an ammo cost of approximatly whatever a handful of scrap engine blocks costs these days per shot. I like airplanes. I like missiles because they fly, Drones are neat too. But we should be building one really expensive battleship rather than flying 30 equally expensive aircraft to do the same job at 80 times the cost.
And do we do all this before or after all the defense spending ts on the table? All this really doesn't matter anyway. No chance we'll use heavy machinery against muslims while obama's in office.
Eight half ton bombs in 2011 work for you?
Edited, Sep 17th 2012 8:43am by Timelordwho
Just as Planned.
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Better? How is radical islam conquering our once allies better for us?
You know how these sorts of strategic allies work, right?
They are our allies until something better shows up.
Just as Planned.
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Funny that you spend more time debating whether I'm this guy varus than you do talking about
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Varus was more entertaining.
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Funny that you spend more time debating whether I'm this guy varus than you do talking about
You can be Varus. It's all up to you.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Recent Visitors: 420
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (420)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Embassy Attacks
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC