Design a modern battleship

last SG · 2007-02-24T01:56:56+00:00

is it like possible to put enough armor on a Battleship to make it impervious to missle attacks?

Kuali Baba SG

OOT: USS Dwight D. Eisenhower is escorted by 14 warships and a submarine. Information courtesy of Jeremy Clarkson (of all people).

ray243 SG

Would the escort defense be USEFUL if they can allow an enemy warship to get into VISUAL range of the carrier?

Shotgun SG

Yes, Artillery is useful, I'll never contest that. But having a battleship to provide fire support isn't particularly cost effective either.

In this day and age, whatever needs to be bombarded can be done with a few Hornets loaded with JDAMs with greater precision. So whats the point of having battleships anymore. I just need more planes and more JDAMs.

I don't need a battleship to sink ships, nor to just bombard land. I need harpoons or torpedoes.

For anything else, theres always a master card.

allentyb SG

GUNDAM FREEDOM IMPULSE

WHAT A GREAT IDEA I HAVE CONTRIBUTE

maggot SG

Use a submarine design and add a hovercraft ability to it and TATA Laughing

Can submerge and storm landing points and even possible to travel on land

If possible put 1 or 2 harriers/helicopters in it so it can be an aircraft carrier too Mr. Green

spartan6 SG

PGM r limited in number due 2 their high cost & better suite 2 attacking particular target Sad 2 prove my point, how do u lock-on to enemy infantry Question tat why conventional arty can never be really replaces with PGM at lest not in e forseeable future Neutral

But a battle ship for shore bombardment is way 2 costy la, just mount a 155MM howizer on a frigate or destroyer will do la, e Germans had done it in tests

Shotgun SG

You don't need to lock on to enemy infantry. You just need to ground stabilize the targeting pod and flip the laser arm switch.

Secondly, IMO infantry that are considered worthy targets are generally found near the front. Hence are generally within range of friendly artillery if available. So you don't have to drop anything on them. Infantry found deep in enemy territory, isn't really worth bombing since they pose no threat. Even if they are targets of opportunities...

A bombardment battleship is definitely not the cost efficient way to go.

However, a nice large logistic ship, with ability to refuel, re-arm ships would be nice for really long missions. Like a floating mini-naval base.

storm_freaky13 SG

i dun think missiles can replace shells for artillery bombardment. Perhaps the MLRS but not precision missiles. that would be too costly.

And i was not suggesting the use of battleships for artillery support, I suggested a smaller vessel with about six howitzers. Heck, it can even just be on a floating barge but that aint small either Embarassed

But I just realised, why not put an MLRS system or two on a vessel? Smaller more compact and way more firepower with the capability to make the munitions smart when needed. It will be combining the best of both worlds. Feel free to discuss or flame. Smile

Fingolfin_Noldor SG

The Iowas can manage 30 knots. They are classified as Fast Battleships. I believe the British Vanguard which has since been decommissioned is of similar speed as well.

Gas Turbines can perform as well as a Nuclear Powered vessel.

Rail Guns outperform all offensive missile systems.

spartan6 SG

OK, but wat im trying 2 say is PGM dun have e volume of arty

« Previous Page