NationStates Jolt Archive

You think we should spend millions of taxpayer dollars to build obsolete ships...Because they look cool?

Have you ever seen a battleship leave a sideways wake? Have you ever seen what happens when a battleship fires all nine of her main guns at the same time?
This is awesome http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/SHIP_Battleship_Iowa_Front_Firing_lg.jpg

I think we should bring back the battleship They are magnificent ships.

I'd rather they brought back yo-yo's myself

and then do what with them?

You think we should spend millions of taxpayer dollars to build obsolete ships...Because they look cool?

Update them. Add cruise missiles, modern electronics, nuclear power, etc. It would be money better spent than building a bridge to nowhere, a million dollar bus stop in Alaska, and all that other pork legislation the Senate adds to spending bills. :mad:

The military buys equipment based on its needs, not on what civilian fanboys want to masturbate over. Battleships have been deemed unworthy of defense dollars, and giving Uncle Sam's spending habits that's saying something.

Update them. Add cruise missiles, modern electronics, nuclear power, etc. It would be money better spent than building a bridge to nowhere, a million dollar bus stop in Alaska, and all that other pork legislation the Senate adds to spending bills. :mad:

Or we could just, like, you know, not spend it because we have a deficit the size of some minor African nations.

Update them. Add cruise missiles, modern electronics, nuclear power, etc. It would be money better spent than building a bridge to nowhere, a million dollar bus stop in Alaska, and all that other pork legislation the Senate adds to spending bills. :mad:

I'm sure you could find an equally impressive picture showing modern military hardware

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USS_Cape_St._George_missile.jpg) is cool enough and much more practical as well.

and then do what with them?

Then we can do what Teddy Roosevelt did with "The Great White Fleet" (scroll down a bit to see pictures etc)

http://cgi.ebay.com/Great-White-Fleet-Teddy-Roosevelt-Battleships-Cruisers_W0QQitemZ130124775779QQihZ003QQcategoryZ95158QQcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohosting

Update them. Add cruise missiles, modern electronics, nuclear power, etc. It would be money better spent than building a bridge to nowhere, a million dollar bus stop in Alaska, and all that other pork legislation the Senate adds to spending bills. :mad:

It's not like senators and congressmen would stop writing porkbarrel projects into their legislation, we'll just have another big project to fund.

Then we can do what Teddy Roosevelt did with "The Great White Fleet" (scroll down a bit to see pictures etc)

http://cgi.ebay.com/Great-White-Fleet-Teddy-Roosevelt-Battleships-Cruisers_W0QQitemZ130124775779QQihZ003QQcategoryZ95158QQcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohosting

Circumnavigate the world to show off American seapower? Correct me if I'm wrong, no one has any doubts about American control of the seas.

The military buys equipment based on its needs, not on what civilian fanboys want to masturbate over.

You'd think that wouldn't you...

You'd think that wouldn't you...

Well, needs and the base self interest of certain individuals and companies within the whole military industrial complex. However, the last thing on their list is what civilians think looks "cool".

Update them. Add cruise missiles, modern electronics, nuclear power, etc. It would be money better spent than building a bridge to nowhere, a million dollar bus stop in Alaska, and all that other pork legislation the Senate adds to spending bills. :mad:
You realize that the Congress has separate things they spend money on. All that shit you mentioned? Not in the military budget. The military budget is spent on useful things like hovercraft that don't work, redundant armed transports (by which I mean one is more expensive than the other and less armored and they are buying hundreds of it), a new carrier class and new bomber every few years.

I would love to see the battleships back on active service being former Navy but I realize it's impractical. The big guns are impressive but effectively obsolete. They don't even have the hardware to build replacement barrels anymore and the stocks of existing replacement barrels were small.

The 5" guns took to much manpower for their utilization. Replacing them w/ missile batteries has already been accomplished w/ much smaller and less vulnerable platforms. Four of the 18 Ohio class SSBN's have been converted to SSGN's at a much smaller cost and providing a wider array of capabilities that the BB's could provide for todays military requirements.

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USS_Cape_St._George_missile.jpg) is cool enough and much more practical as well.

Not nearly as impressive though.

Not nearly as impressive though.

I'd prefer my tax money to go to something that is less impressive but functions better.

You realize that the Congress has separate things they spend money on. All that shit you mentioned? Not in the military budget. The military budget is spent on useful things like hovercraft that don't work, redundant armed transports (by which I mean one is more expensive than the other and less armored and they are buying hundreds of it), a new carrier class and new bomber every few years.

Tough to maintain the position of most advanced military without that

Not nearly as impressive though.

Having a more efficient and powerful force than before isn't impressive enough?

The military buys equipment based on its needs, not on what civilian fanboys want to masturbate over. Battleships have been deemed unworthy of defense dollars, and giving Uncle Sam's spending habits that's saying something.

Unfortunately, that isn't always true. Sometimes Congress buys some military equipment the military doesn't want or need just to keep jobs in their district. Wasn't so long ago Congress added some C-17 aircraft that the Air Force said they didn't want or need. So why not add a cool battleship that the Navy doesn't want or need. Look at all the jobs it would create for the state that has the shipyard where it would be built.:)

Tough to maintain the position of most advanced military without that
Most advanced military maintaining a conventional force against no enemy that a conventional force is useful. I havnt' heard any reason that we need a new carrier class and the navy wants a manned, subsonic bomber by 2018, but they want that replaced by an unmanned, hypersonic bomber by 2025. I'm sure the line of research on the former is reeeeaaal useful. Especially with our missile technology and no conventional enemies.

Unfortunately, that isn't always true. Sometimes Congress buys some military equipment the military doesn't want or need just to keep jobs in their district. Wasn't so long ago Congress added some C-17 aircraft that the Air Force said they didn't want or need. So why not add a cool battleship that the Navy doesn't want or need. Look at all the jobs it would create for the state that has the shipyard where it would be built.:)

That's the second problem. Career politicians want to keep their jobs so they poor money into requisitions that keep jobs in their districts.

Update them. Add cruise missiles, modern electronics, nuclear power, etc.
After you update them they are not battleships anymore as updating would have to include removing the most obsolete part, the guns.

I agree that battleships where impressive, the queens of the waves, no other surface ship could defeat them. But they are useless as they'd be defeated by missiles, aircraft or submarines before reaching the enemy navy. The short history of the Yamato class battleships pretty much sums it up. The greatest war machines ever built never got a decent chance to battle enemy ships.

You realize that the Congress has separate things they spend money on. All that shit you mentioned? Not in the military budget. The military budget is spent on useful things like hovercraft that don't work, redundant armed transports (by which I mean one is more expensive than the other and less armored and they are buying hundreds of it), a new carrier class and new bomber every few years.

Did you miss all the pork that was in the last military spending bill? You know, the one the President put his veto on and sent back to Congress. They might have taken some of the pork out of it but not all, and not all the pork was related to defense. :mad:

Well, needs and the base self interest of certain individuals and companies within the whole military industrial complex. However, the last thing on their list is what civilians think looks "cool".

Ok, so I'll buy some models, build them, and sail them in my bathtub. Maybe get a swimming pool and figure out how to get the guns on the model to fire at the neighbors barking dogs. :p

Did you miss all the pork that was in the last military spending bill? You know, the one the President put his veto on and sent back to Congress. They might have taken some of the pork out of it but not all, and not all the pork was related to defense. :mad:

The president put his veto on it solely because they were spending more than he said they could spend. He is pretending he cares about cutting back spending.

Most advanced military maintaining a conventional force against no enemy that a conventional force is useful. I havnt' heard any reason that we need a new carrier class and the navy wants a manned, subsonic bomber by 2018, but they want that replaced by an unmanned, hypersonic bomber by 2025. I'm sure the line of research on the former is reeeeaaal useful. Especially with our missile technology and no conventional enemies.



That's the second problem. Career politicians want to keep their jobs so they poor money into requisitions that keep jobs in their districts.

The "new carrier class" is to replace older platforms that are being retired and to intorduce updated electronics, safety, and a broader range of capabilities than even the Nimitz class.

Bombers also have a broader range than missiles exclusively. More "bang" for your buck.

Have you ever seen a battleship leave a sideways wake?

No.

Have you ever seen what happens when a battleship fires all nine of her main guns at the same time?

No.

This is awesome

That's a matter of opinion.

I think we should bring back the battleship They are magnificent ships.

On the basis of a Photoshopped jpeg image?

Ok, so I'll buy some models, build them, and sail them in my bathtub. Maybe get a swimming pool and figure out how to get the guns on the model to fire at the neighbors barking dogs. :p

http://www.ohgizmo.com/2006/06/06/you-sunk-my-battleship-literally/

The "new carrier class" is to replace older platforms that are being retired and to intorduce updated electronics, safety, and a broader range of capabilities than even the Nimitz class.

Bombers also have a broader range than missiles exclusively. More "bang" for your buck.

Bombers can also be recalled or re-targeted while in flight but missiles can not. I don't think we will ever entirely eliminate bombers although we might some day eliminate manned bombers if we can figure out a way to make their guidance system jam proof.

Well, needs and the base self interest of certain individuals and companies within the whole military industrial complex. However, the last thing on their list is what civilians think looks "cool".

Did you know that one time a congressman asked the military if they needed something...I think it was a plane or a boat, and the military said "No." and the congressman basically said "Yeah, you do need it. How much is it going to cost?" and the military told him a number, and the congressman then told them that that number WASN'T HIGH ENOUGH.

If someone could link up the specifics, I would appreciate it.

Photoshopped jpeg image?

Not photoshopped. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ scroll down to "Firing Nemo"

Wasn't the last big gun battleship fight over 60 years ago? (at Battle of Leyte Gulf?)

Battleship fleets were originally built as a demonstration of national power and prestige, and as a deterrent, the same way nukes are used today. Looking through history, we can see that no one actually deep down really wanted to risk loosing any of their precious battleships by actually sending them against each other.

As for their utility today, what weapon system can the battleship outperform today in a cost effective way?

Did you know that one time a congressman asked the military if they needed something...I think it was a plane or a boat, and the military said "No." and the congressman basically said "Yeah, you do need it. How much is it going to cost?" and the military told him a number, and the congressman then told them that that number WASN'T HIGH ENOUGH.

If someone could link up the specifics, I would appreciate it.

This isn't the one you are referring to but is an example of what you are talking about.

California Republican Congressman "Earmarks" Millions of Our Tax Dollars for Contributor Who Designs Aircraft Unwanted by Pentagon
By Bill Cavala
A veteran of over 30 years in Sacramento
San Diego Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter has wasted over $60 million dollars in taxpayer money, shoveling it to a political contributor through budget “earmarks”.
An “earmark” is money inserted in a bill by a single Congressman. No hearing. No oversight.
Hunter’s “earmark” went for research and development on a plane design which was unwanted by the Pentagon. A warplane unwanted by our warriors. Hunter has been throwing money at it for years. It has not flown successfully. It doesn’t work. (That’s probably why the Pentagon doesn’t want it).
So why has Hunter continued to throw our tax dollars into this plane design? Is he a visionary? Does he know more than the Pentagon experts?
Or was he unduly influenced by the $36,000 the design firm contributed to his account?
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/06/california_repu_7.html

This isn't the one you are referring to but is an example of what you are talking about.

California Republican Congressman "Earmarks" Millions of Our Tax Dollars for Contributor Who Designs Aircraft Unwanted by Pentagon
By Bill Cavala
A veteran of over 30 years in Sacramento
San Diego Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter has wasted over $60 million dollars in taxpayer money, shoveling it to a political contributor through budget “earmarks”.
An “earmark” is money inserted in a bill by a single Congressman. No hearing. No oversight.
Hunter’s “earmark” went for research and development on a plane design which was unwanted by the Pentagon. A warplane unwanted by our warriors. Hunter has been throwing money at it for years. It has not flown successfully. It doesn’t work. (That’s probably why the Pentagon doesn’t want it).
So why has Hunter continued to throw our tax dollars into this plane design? Is he a visionary? Does he know more than the Pentagon experts?
Or was he unduly influenced by the $36,000 the design firm contributed to his account?
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/06/california_repu_7.html

Actually, I think that might be what I'm referring to.

Did you know that one time a congressman asked the military if they needed something...I think it was a plane or a boat, and the military said "No." and the congressman basically said "Yeah, you do need it. How much is it going to cost?" and the military told him a number, and the congressman then told them that that number WASN'T HIGH ENOUGH.

If someone could link up the specifics, I would appreciate it.

Yes, I am quite aware of things like that happening. I did spend 4 years on active duty in the Army. However, there's a large difference between buying a few extra units of a weapons system and having a completely new one created or an old one updated to modern standards (especially one as costly as a battleship).

edit: Regardless, my point stands that military procurement is based on something a little more substantial than "looking cool" or "being impressive" even if it's the base self interested I talked about earlier.

edit: Regardless, my point stands that military procurement is based on something a little more substantial than "looking cool" or "being impressive" even if it's the base self interested I talked about earlier.

This is also cool and impressive. http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/air-recent/b52-bombs.jpg

This is also cool and impressive. http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/air-recent/b52-bombs.jpg

And anal.

And anal.

With that many bombs lying around I would be

And anal.

I feel sorry for the guys who had to lay all that crap out for a picture and then pack it all back up.

This is also cool and impressive. http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/air-recent/b52-bombs.jpg

This is much cooler:

http://www.kidneyetn.org/images/dialysisimage2.gif

I know which I'd prefer my hard earned going on.

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USS_Cape_St._George_missile.jpg) is cool enough and much more practical as well.

1 Anti-ship missile would send that thing to the bottom, a battleship would just keep on going. Or did you guys all know that?

Anti-ship missiles are designed to go through Modern ships, which have much thinner armor than the battleship.

I say we should use them until they run out of ammo. And why upgrade the tomahawks, they still have the old launchers, why do they need to upgrade to the vertical?



Thing is if they upgrade the battleships...

The poor poor contractors building the newer pieces of crap get short changed... Boo ****ing hoo.

Well, needs and the base self interest of certain individuals and companies within the whole military industrial complex. Because they are SO broke. They're running on shoestrings! :p


I have to say the same thing about the "ATF"

Which BTW we've been waiting +10 YEARS for!!! It was supposed to be out in 97.

pfft... Advanced Timeconsuming Fighter that will never be completed.

After you update them they are not battleships anymore as updating would have to include removing the most obsolete part, the guns. They did have some plans on removing the rear turrets to put in modern equipment but keeping the frontal ones still.

I agree that battleships where impressive, the queens of the waves, no other surface ship could defeat them. But they are useless as they'd be defeated by missiles, You'd need alot of them.aircraft You'd need alot of them aslo. or submarines If it's in a fleet there is enough Anti-sub defense from Detroyers before reaching the enemy navy. The short history of the Yamato class battleships pretty much sums it up. The greatest war machines ever built never got a decent chance to battle enemy ships. The Japaneese also couldn't get Air superiority, you think the US would do the same mistake? Heck fit the Battleship with
SAM Missile batteries along the sides and you'd have a pin cushion of doom.

Actually maniy of the marines want the Battleship back... But the navy won't let them have any.

I agree. Ships are awesome.

Battleships would be extremely effective in diplomacy, even if they had little military value.

Have you ever seen a battleship leave a sideways wake? Have you ever seen what happens when a battleship fires all nine of her main guns at the same time?
This is awesome http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/SHIP_Battleship_Iowa_Front_Firing_lg.jpg

I think we should bring back the battleship They are magnificent ships.


Thats Cool, I never saw that before, but I have seen destroyers steam
right though a huge wave instead of over it in the middle of a spring storm
on the Atlantic.

Too expensive to build, too costly to maintain, too single purpose, too out of date.

This is also cool and impressive. http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/air-recent/b52-bombs.jpg

why am I hearing Vin Diesel's voice saying
"I want all of that... in here."

Large vessels are not worth it - they cost way too much. They may be a little more robust than small cruisers, but when it sinks, it represents a huge loss. Big ships are big targets, and ammunition is cheap. A couple small craft packed with explosives will send it to the bottom. An anti-ship missiles, a torpedo, or a mine could sink it - or at the very least damage it severely enough to render it useless.

Big guns are actually useful though... they are a cheap means of bombardment. Ballistic shells are a minuscule fraction of the cost of a missile, but the battleship as a whole tips the scale in terms of financial investment.

It makes a lot more sense to have a bunch of small versatile craft than one big battleship.

And anal.

That's a beautiful airplane. I worked on them for over 20 years, they are still flying, and I've been retired for 18 years. That picture was taken at Barksdale AFB, Louisiana home of the 2nd Bomb Wing and 8th Air Force. I was stationed there on three tours for a total of 15 years. My son is now on his second tour there. Great aircraft, great base.

Battleships would be extremely effective in diplomacy, even if they had little military value.

You realize those two statements are directly contradictory.

Actually, I think that might be what I'm referring to.
That isn't what you are referring to.
If I'm right, he is referring to the $70mil hovercraft I was referencing and you are referring to a recent statement where Generals said they couldn't afford some stuff they needed and the head of the budgetary committee said if they need something, he will do whatever it takes to get funding (I think that is what you are referring to).

That's a beautiful airplane. I worked on them for over 20 years, they are still flying, and I've been retired for 18 years. That picture was taken at Barksdale AFB, Louisiana home of the 2nd Bomb Wing and 8th Air Force. I was stationed there on three tours for a total of 15 years. My son is now on his second tour there. Great aircraft, great base.

... wait... and Air Force person wanting the Gov. to spend money on the NAVY and NOT build another Aircraft Carrier!?!


Any other person in the service seeing somethign wrong with this? :p

... wait... and Air Force person wanting the Gov. to spend money on the NAVY and NOT build another Aircraft Carrier!?!


Any other person in the service seeing somethign wrong with this? :p

Before joining the Air Force, I served for 15 months in the Naval Reserves, Submarine Division 1-8, USNRTC in Boston. I love ships. When I was a kid my dad used to take me to the South Boston ship yard to look at and explore the ships that were there.

I often wish the Royal Navy would get some battleships, but only because the old beautiful ship names like Ramillies and Warspite would be wasted on anything less so they'll probably never be used again.

Although in reality, we'll be lucky if we even have a Navy in twenty years time the way things are going.

Did you know that one time a congressman asked the military if they needed something...I think it was a plane or a boat, and the military said "No." and the congressman basically said "Yeah, you do need it. How much is it going to cost?" and the military told him a number, and the congressman then told them that that number WASN'T HIGH ENOUGH.

If someone could link up the specifics, I would appreciate it.

Trent Lott.

Before joining the Air Force, I served for 15 months in the Naval Reserves, Submarine Division 1-8, USNRTC in Boston. I love ships. When I was a kid my dad used to take me to the South Boston ship yard to look at and explore the ships that were there.

Whoa! wwhat?!

You were in the Naval Reserves and THEN you joined the Air Force?!?!

I gotta pass these posts on to my friends in the Air Force and Navy They'll get a kick outta this!!! :p :D :D

Too expensive to build, too costly to maintain, too single purpose, too out of date.

Along with too big, too daunty, too slow, too low-tech.

Conisder the speed that the shells of the ship travel at, compared to that of a missile.

Consider the weight of all the shells the ship would need to carry, compared to that of a battery of missiles.

Consider the impact/weight ratio of shells, compared to a missile.

Consider how accurate shells are, compared to missiles.

Then consider why you even started this thread in the first place.

EDIT: not "you" you, the OP "you"

Whoa! wwhat?!

You were in the Naval Reserves and THEN you joined the Air Force?!?!

I gotta pass these posts on to my friends in the Air Force and Navy They'll get a kick outta this!!! :p :D :D

Oh, you're kidding?! Naval reserve to active Air Force duty?!

Oh, I think I almost shit my pants, I'm laughing so hard!

Whoa! wwhat?!

You were in the Naval Reserves and THEN you joined the Air Force?!?!

I gotta pass these posts on to my friends in the Air Force and Navy They'll get a kick outta this!!! :p :D :D

Here is the sad story. While in the Navy reserves I went on active duty to submarine school in New London. We had two courses to complete that summer, SP school and SG school. While I was in SP school, I came down with mono and ended up in the hospital. While in the hospital I had a lot of time to think.

I wanted to make the military a career and at that time, the submarine force was going nuclear. They had two crews, blue and gold, for each boat. You spent six months at sea and six in port. At the time I was in love (or lust) with Jerry and I knew I wanted to get married and have kids, but being gone six months at a time and marriage just didn't seem to go together.

When I got out of the hospital, the Navy had advanced me to SG school, but I was about a week behind. I couldn't catch up and was released from active duty and sent back to my reserve unit in Boston. When I got back, I went to the Air Force recruiter and said, "Can you get me out of the Navy Reserves?" His reply was, "Sign here." The rest is history. Twenty-six years in the Air Force.

Oh, I still love ships and no, I didn't marry Jerry.

why does this thread keep reminding me of Harold and Kumar?

why does this thread keep reminding me of Harold and Kumar?

:confused:Who?:confused:

Have you ever seen what happens when a battleship fires all nine of her main guns at the same time?

Iowa's have nine guns. Many other battleships don't... Not all battleships were Iowas.

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/06/california_repu_7.html Okay 30 years for a plane that can't fly, can barely hover, can't move, and can't land... Someone please toss him in his plane and throw it in the Ocean!!!

... wait... and Air Force person wanting the Gov. to spend money on the NAVY and NOT build another Aircraft Carrier!?!


Any other person in the service seeing somethign wrong with this? :p

i do in the Airforce wanting a Aircraft Carrier

That's a beautiful airplane. I worked on them for over 20 years, they are still flying, and I've been retired for 18 years. That picture was taken at Barksdale AFB, Louisiana home of the 2nd Bomb Wing and 8th Air Force. I was stationed there on three tours for a total of 15 years. My son is now on his second tour there. Great aircraft, great base.
...

*reads sig*
Celtlund?

I'd rather they brought back yo-yo's myself

The yo-yo never left us! :p I have a Duncan Imperial out in the garage somewhere, I think.

Iowa's have nine guns. Many other battleships don't... Not all battleships were Iowas.

Hooray for the Iowa!
Iowa I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uss_iowa_bb-61_pr.jpg)
Iowa II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BB61_USS_Iowa_BB61_broadside_USN.jpg)

Yes… battleships are fun, aren't they?

This sort of came up in International Incidents. It does that a lot. It also never makes any goddamn sense to waste that much money and men on a type of ship that was proven obsolete in the last world war. The whole point of naval warfare today is to attack an enemy over the horizon with guided weapons before he can hit you. It took only 20 hits to sink the Yamato and it was done completely by aircraft. Today we don't even need to send in planes, a missile can be guided just as well and do just as much damage. For all their armor and big guns the Battleships are simply too vulnerable to attack from the ski. A smaller, faster ship with lots of powerful missiles will be able to blow through the armor and sink the ship or at least damage it to severely to continue fighting.

[insert picture of a giant ski striking a battleship]

Have you ever seen a battleship leave a sideways wake? Have you ever seen what happens when a battleship fires all nine of her main guns at the same time?
This is awesome http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/SHIP_Battleship_Iowa_Front_Firing_lg.jpg

I think we should bring back the battleship They are magnificent ships.

A) The sideways wake is and always has been a complete myth. The "wake" is caused by the shockwave of the guns firing.

B) The battleship is obsolete, an aircraft carrier can project much more force with much greater range and infinitely greater precision than a battleship ever could.

kthxbye.

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USS_Cape_St._George_missile.jpg) is cool enough and much more practical as well.

That's not cool… see my pictures above.

The battleship is obsolete, an aircraft carrier can project much more force with much greater range and infinitely greater precision than a battleship ever could.

kthxbye.

It's not about the accuracy, or the obsoleteness…osity. It's about the sheer awesomeness. You just sail them around in friendly seas at 7kt, threaten Greenpeace with them, then turn them into museums.

We still have battleships.
http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/narmain/narmain_files/ohiosub.jpeg (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ohio/images/ohio2.jpg)
They are just called Ohio class ballistic missile submarines instead.
Together they can bring the world as we know it to an end.
Why would you need anything more?

It's not about the accuracy, or the obsoleteness…osity. It's about the sheer awesomeness. You just sail them around in friendly seas at 7kt, threaten Greenpeace with them, then turn them into museums.

Well, when you put it that way... it makes me want to never listen to your opinion ever again. Huh, strange. :rolleyes:

Well, when you put it that way... it makes me want to never listen to your opinion ever again. Huh, strange. :rolleyes:

What? The people need museums… will you deny them of this?

We still have battleships.
http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/narmain/narmain_files/ohiosub.jpeg (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ohio/images/ohio2.jpg)
They are just called Ohio class ballistic missile submarines instead.
Together they can bring the world as we know it to an end.
Why would you need anything more?

Because battleships can't bring the world to an end… not in any reasonable amount of time, anyway…

Then use the SSGN variant of the SSBN Ohio class, it can carry 154 conventional tomahawk cruise missiles and do the job of all 4 Iowa class ships in 1/2 the time

We still have battleships.
http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/narmain/narmain_files/ohiosub.jpeg (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ohio/images/ohio2.jpg)
They are just called Ohio class ballistic missile submarines instead.
Together they can bring the world as we know it to an end.
Why would you need anything more?

i blame you for having that song in my head now

i do in the Airforce wanting a Aircraft Carrier

yes, but he wants a battleship. an Aircraft Carrier being wanted by the Air Force makes some semblance of sense... but a battleship?

yes, but he wants a battleship. an Aircraft Carrier being wanted by the Air Force makes some semblance of sense... but a battleship?

why not a Flying Air Fortress

1 Anti-ship missile would send that thing to the bottom, a battleship would just keep on going. Or did you guys all know that?

I talked to a naval systems designer about that. He pointed to the Granit AKA Shipwreck missile. 750 kilos of RDX combined with a supersonic carrier package guarantees that any amount of armor is pointless. And if that fails, nothing can stand up to a 500kt fission warhead that the Granit can carry.

Armor systems on most ships are being replaced by active defense systems and improved damage control.

No one who argues for battleship seriously argues for them to be used to engage other ships, but to support operations close to land. The services have been desperate IIRC for a ship with better shore bombardment capability, something the current line of ships with only single 5" guns lacks.

Conisder the speed that the shells of the ship travel at, compared to that of a missile.
Tomahawk has a speed of around 800 km/h, vs. the Iowa's 16" guns with ~3,000 km/h muzzle velocity. A modern "battleship" using railguns could get a much higher velocity.

Consider the weight of all the shells the ship would need to carry, compared to that of a battery of missiles.
The weight of each individual shell/missile is similar actually, although a modern "battleship" using railguns could fire a smaller shell at higher velocities with less risk of the munition blowing up in storage.

Consider the impact/weight ratio of shells, compared to a missile.
The current tests of railguns to be mounted on US destroyers gives them the same punch as a Tomahawk, for less price to boot.

Consider how accurate shells are, compared to missiles.
Given modern computers, similar accuracy could easily be achieved, especially if the shell is itself fitted with some intelligence and fins to guide it along.

We still have battleships.
http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/narmain/narmain_files/ohiosub.jpeg (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ohio/images/ohio2.jpg)
They are just called Ohio class ballistic missile submarines instead.
Together they can bring the world as we know it to an end.
Why would you need anything more?

Because submarines don't assert a bubble of dominance. Aka, generals like waving around giant invisible penises in the ocean.

While a battelship would have great utility, with modern ammo a couple Iowas class could bombard anywhere in North Korea withour moving, th expense to operate the Iowas or build a new BB is too high to warrant their use.

However, something like the DD(X) has a lot of potential. I'd like to see more guns, three turrets instead of two, and bigger guns, 203mm instead of 155mm. Put a few more VLS cells on board loaded with Tomahawks, SLAMs, LASMs, and the navalised ATACMs plus some ESSMs for self defense and you got a nasty beast of a ship.

If you don't understand the acronyms, Google them.

We don't need battleships because we now have Tomahawk Cruise Missiles.

Because submarines don't assert a bubble of dominance. Aka, generals like waving around giant invisible penises in the ocean.

Admirals. Generals like waving around giant invisible penises on land.

No one who argues for battleship seriously argues for them to be used to engage other ships, but to support operations close to land. The services have been desperate IIRC for a ship with better shore bombardment capability, something the current line of ships with only single 5" guns lacks.
A missile can go farther inland with greater accuracy than a shell.

Tomahawk has a speed of around 800 km/h, vs. the Iowa's 16" guns with ~3,000 km/h muzzle velocity. A modern "battleship" using railguns could get a much higher velocity.
First off, you know nothing of railguns so don't mention them ever again. When a conducting projectile is introduced into the breech, it strikes an arc between the rails, and is accelerated down the barrel by Lorentz force. The projectile can be composed of anything, as long as the base will conduct electricity. I'll be Frank and you be Lucy, the faster a railguns projectile moves the more the rails it has to be in contact with erode. If they don't make contact then there's arcing which does just as much damage. After so much of either type the rails must be replaced. Nearly all railguns today are single shot weapons that must be disassembled after every shot or so for major work. And they don't give much higher muzzle velocities currently than conventional big guns. And they have an absolute upper limit of 6 or so kilometers per second. And a coilgun, though longer and more complex, uses less power than a comparable railgun. I happen to be an expert on this subject. Might have something to do with the fact that I've made one.

And number B, it doesn't matter what a missiles velocity is so long as it's enough to keep it airborn because a missile does its damage through the explosives that it carries. A heavy shell does a lot of its damage through kinetic energy.

The weight of each individual shell/missile is similar actually, although a modern "battleship" using railguns could fire a smaller shell at higher velocities with less risk of the munition blowing up in storage.
No, missiles are smaller, lighter, and can pack more of a punch. That's the beauty of the missile, it does just what you want it to do; if you want it to blow up a half a city then load it with a small nuke, if you want it to blow up just a hous then stick a few small conventional explosives in it. And then there's the whole thing about railguns needing a buttload of power to work. More than it takes to set off a missile.

The current tests of railguns to be mounted on US destroyers gives them the same punch as a Tomahawk, for less price to boot.
Big railguns are fucking expenisve. Mine can fire a single round nearly as fast as a bullet. I cut corners so it's nowhere near milspec. It still cost hundreds. My homemade dumbfires were considerably cheaper and even adding some form of gudance would have cost less than a gun that needs the barrel to be heavily braced when firing and changed after every shot.

Given modern computers, similar accuracy could easily be achieved, especially if the shell is itself fitted with some intelligence and fins to guide it along.
A guided projectile? Why didn't I think of it before?!...Oh wait, that's a missile.

Get this through your head, an unguided projectile will never be as accurate at extreme ranges as a guided one. No computer can make a cannon as accurate at hitting a target 400 miles away as a missile. The missile course corrects, the shell cannot or it would be a missile. There is also no reason to combine the two. Get out of the fantasy world and step into the real one. We use missiles today because they're more accurate and cheaper than cannons that fall apart constantly. It's a fun concept and a nice toy but it's not a practical weapon.

The destroyer replaced them because destroyers are cheaper and can do as much damage. Get over it.

A guided projectile? Why didn't I think of it before?!...Oh wait, that's a missile.


Technically no. Essentially, the rounds are unpowered, fin guided munitions. They're produced in 155mm calibre for ground artillery.

ERGM rounds aren't anything new.

Heck I never knew they were done away with. Certainly they are still around.. like part of various countries naval branches? They been around a looong time. If all heck was to break loose, I think they'd still be used. If none were in working condition I'm sure they'd upgrade them or produce them.

Put all my eggs in the same basket? No thank you.

I opted for fast attack.

Battleships would be extremely effective in diplomacy, even if they had little military value.
Errr... not as good as nuclear submarines, which are better in every single way.

Yeah, fine, you're fucked with depth charges and all, but then a couple of anti-ship missiles and the same is completely true of battleships, which also have little tactical or strategic value.

"woo for surface bombardment" = rubbish compared to "woo for close air support", which is what's used in lieu of battleships, with much greater effect.

Yeah, fine, you're fucked with depth charges and all, but then a couple of anti-ship missiles and the same is completely true of battleships, which also have little tactical or strategic value.


Who the heck still uses depth charges? Modern ASW weaponry are all torpedo based IIRC.

Battleships would not be any more effective in diplomacy than the deployment of a carrier battle group currently does. The aircraft carrier battle group represents the ultimate in force projection. We aren't living in 1910 anymore, move on; forwards not backwards.

You think we should spend millions of taxpayer dollars to build obsolete ships...Because they look cool?

Sounds as good a way to waste taxpayer dollars as any other.

No one who argues for battleship seriously argues for them to be used to engage other ships, but to support operations close to land. The services have been desperate IIRC for a ship with better shore bombardment capability, something the current line of ships with only single 5" guns lacks.
Carrier-launched CAS aircraft are just so much better for this. Shells are alright. Cluster bombs are much better.
Tomahawk has a speed of around 800 km/h, vs. the Iowa's 16" guns with ~3,000 km/h muzzle velocity.
...

Think how much a 16" shell weighs. Now consider how much it will slow down within, ooo, ten or so seconds?

The missile's looking faster.
A modern "battleship" using railguns could get a much higher velocity.

The weight of each individual shell/missile is similar actually, although a modern "battleship" using railguns could fire a smaller shell at higher velocities with less risk of the munition blowing up in storage.

The current tests of railguns to be mounted on US destroyers gives them the same punch as a Tomahawk, for less price to boot.
Interesting...

You know nothing about railguns.

How's about first consider the facts on the matter, such as the fact that putting enormous nuclear reactors on ships to power railguns would be utterly unfeasible, the amount of maintainance needed to keep them from jamming up would be immense, and in the sea, what with... you know... water and all getting near them, they'd be completely buggered up within hours.

I hope you realise that most railgun ideas are working on pellets of a size about 2mm across. Don't, for one second, assume that you're firing 6 or 7" shells out of there.

You'd need a miles-long particle accellerator to make that the beginnings of work, the electromagnetic currents caused would give burns to anyone wearing any metal at all (from the metals spinning so hard) and the power drain would mean that you might as well have brought a couple of city-scale power stations with you.

Crap idea.
Given modern computers, similar accuracy could easily be achieved, especially if the shell is itself fitted with some intelligence and fins to guide it along.
No it wouldn't. At all.

A guided 16" shell with fins might as well be considered some kind of suicide UAV, plus I'm pretty unsure of how you'd get fins on it without having to have some kind of sabot that makes it into a 40-ish" shell, which would just be ludicrous, as well as an expensive waste of time.

A missile has the advantage that it packs a hell of a punch inside a small package, it can be properly guided and skilled operators with a lot of simulated training can be extremely accurate.

Who the heck still uses depth charges? Modern ASW weaponry are all torpedo based IIRC.
If we were talking about cheap ways to take them out, a depth charge would probably suffice, although yeah, ASW weaponary is torp-based.

How's about first consider the facts on the matter, such as the fact that putting enormous nuclear reactors on ships to power railguns would be utterly unfeasible, the amount of maintainance needed to keep them from jamming up would be immense, and in the sea, what with... you know... water and all getting near them, they'd be completely buggered up within hours.

The Navy is considering ralguns IRL.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/awesome-railgun-demoed-navy-gives-the-thumbs-up-229622.php

The time between considering and deploying is probably 50 years, unless a major breakthrough in superconductors or materials science happens soon.. even then I would bet nothing even resembling a useful prototype is going to be seen for 30 years.

Sounds as good a way to waste taxpayer dollars as any other.
Except millions is really a low figure.

The Navy is considering ralguns IRL.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/awesome-railgun-demoed-navy-gives-the-thumbs-up-229622.php
If you read into the subject at all, though, you'll also know that they need to be cleaned and cooled down for several minutes after every shot.

As opposed to missile racks with Tomohawks.

If you read into the subject at all, though, you'll also know that they need to be cleaned and cooled down for several minutes after every shot.

As opposed to missile racks with Tomohawks.


And how often can be Tomahawks fired? They take time to reload, and they take up much more space.

Then consider why you even started this thread in the first place.

EDIT: not "you" you, the OP "you"

I started the thread because I thought the picture was awesome and I think battleships are awesome.

...

*reads sig*
Celtlund?

Hi.

Get the battleships back, that pic is fantastic!

why not a Flying Air Fortress

So you want to bring back the B-36?

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-36-1949.jpg

So you want to bring back the B-36?

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-36-1949.jpg

more like the one in Ring Raiders
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1YsLt8XGQE

Tough to maintain the position of most advanced military without that


What comes close? Don't really see much off russian made stuff being a threat currently.

China isnt a threat, it cant project force so...

Then again, why waste the money on ships and planes that arnt needed? When theres men in front line duties with sub-standard equipment to protect them...

why not a Flying Air Fortress

Because this is real life, not a Japanese anime film.

Because this is real life, not a Japanese anime film.

:rolleyes: no really ever seen some of the ideas poeple came up with in ww2

If we were talking about cheap ways to take them out, a depth charge would probably suffice, although yeah, ASW weaponary is torp-based.

Depth charges might just do more than that. Think of how well-trained and sensitive-eared sonar operators are on modern subs...at least partially because nobody uses depth charges anymore. One $500 depth charge might deafen a sonarman, thus partially crippling a sub's ability to "see". Does anyone know what effect a DC would have on modern passive sonar systems?

Just a theory.

No. And why? Oh yeah, cause they didn't work. Keep your rolly, beady little eyes to yourself.

still miss the point of the whole thing

:rolleyes: no really ever seen some of the ideas poeple came up with in ww2

No. And why? Oh yeah, cause they didn't work. Keep your rolly, beady little eyes to yourself.

No. And why? Oh yeah, cause they didn't work. Keep your rolly, beady little eyes to yourself.

There was the B-17 Flying Fortress, which carried several guns positioned throughout the bomber in hopes of protecting it from enemy fighters.

However the gunners could only do so much with with the guns and ammo they had (keeping weight, and speed in mind while building the aircraft) and did require Fighter Escorts for most of their mission flight time.

It wasn't a "fortress" per say, but that's how the Army saw it, a Bomber that could defend itself on long range missions...however only to a certain extent.

No mystical flying fortress of Japanese Anime, but a deliberate attempt at one...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Akron_(ZRS-4)



and btw "Flying Fortress" was just a nickname, like "skytrain" or "mustang"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Akron_(ZRS-4)

that idea did not last long did it


and btw "Flying Fortress" was just a nickname, like "skytrain" or "mustang"

Flying Fortress and Mustang two of the many nicknames i like

I know it was, its name was given to it by the Army because of what the Army saw the B-17 to be, a A fortified Aircraft that they originally thought would be able to defend itself during long range missions.

no because it sounded cool

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Akron_(ZRS-4)

and btw "Flying Fortress" was just a nickname, like "skytrain" or "mustang"

I know it was, its name was given to it by the Army because of what the Army saw the B-17 to be or at least hoped, a A fortified Aircraft that they originally thought would be able to defend itself during long range missions.

...

*reads sig*
Celtlund?Hi.
Yay! They always return... :p

Whoa! wwhat?!

You were in the Naval Reserves and THEN you joined the Air Force?!?!

I gotta pass these posts on to my friends in the Air Force and Navy They'll get a kick outta this!!! :p :D :D

What if you are part of a carrier plane group? Is that counted as a naval or air force group (I always thought they were naval)?

i do in the Airforce wanting a Aircraft Carrier

Hooray for Australia's fearsome Helicopter carriers!

Because submarines don't assert a bubble of dominance. Aka, generals like waving around giant invisible penises in the ocean.

What about Submersible Aircraft Carrier?

What if you are part of a carrier plane group? Is that counted as a naval or air force group (I always thought they were naval)?



Hooray for Australia's fearsome Helicopter carriers!

In the US, the aircraft on the carriers are belong to and are operated by the Navy or the Marines. The Air Force is strictly a land based force.

What about Submersible Aircraft Carrier?

We are talking real life here not fantasy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_aircraft_carrier

Like everything else, they developed them in between ww1 and ww2

Japan had the best kinds. It would be intersting to see a modern one developed (maybe in 20-30 years).

why not try this again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_assault_submarine

What comes close? Don't really see much off russian made stuff being a threat currently.

China isnt a threat, it cant project force so...

Then again, why waste the money on ships and planes that arnt needed? When theres men in front line duties with sub-standard equipment to protect them...

It takes time to build all of this military hardware and time to research it and plan it. They base their decisions on predictions for the future changes in warfare not the current situation. At least thats my assumption

What I think some of you are missing is the fact that battleships are not entirely obsolete.

Have none of you thought about the strategic uses of Battleships. I don't mean against ships per say (although with good aircover they are quite effective there too), but rather in terms of land/shore bombardment. A Mark 7 can hit over 35 miles with a 2700 lb shell. Sure you can use bombers and missiles, but a battleship offshore can stay there a heck of a lot longer, and can send a lot more lead into that area.

Really, you don't want to be under Mark 7 bombardment. These things pack a LOT of punch.

why not try this again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_assault_submarine

It would have been better if they had made it an armour and infantry only transport (perhaps a packed helicopter as well) and have a submersible aircraft carrier for air support. Having aircraft deployment and capture systems probably take up a disproportionate amount of space.

I'd see those kind of craft more as elite force deployments (until you can mass produce them), so they would used for deep strike attacks and combat construction/preparation.

A forward swept wing fighter would also be nice to see. The russian one won't come out for a while and the civilian one (a Cessna I think) won't be out for a while either.

A missile can go farther inland with greater accuracy than a shell.
And that had what to do with my point about shore bombardment?

First off, you know nothing of railguns so don't mention them ever again.
lol
Nearly all railguns today are single shot weapons that must be disassembled after every shot or so for major work.
Becuase obviously, in the future, we'll never be able to improve the tech, so might as well give up eh?
And they don't give much higher muzzle velocities currently than conventional big guns.
Given that the Navy plans for a gun with seven times the punch of current naval artillery, using a much smaller shell, they're obviously getting a higher velocity out of their guns then conventional guns of the same calibre.
And they have an absolute upper limit of 6 or so kilometers per second.
Which is still faster then many missiles.
And a coilgun, though longer and more complex, uses less power than a comparable railgun.
Agreed, and would help prevent rail errosion in most railgun designs.
And number B, it doesn't matter what a missiles velocity is so long as it's enough to keep it airborn because a missile does its damage through the explosives that it carries. A heavy shell does a lot of its damage through kinetic energy.
It matters when you need to hit a target quickly as possible; the new railgun the Navy's working on could send a round 200 nm in six minutes, compared to eight minutes for a Tomahawk to travel that same distance.

No, missiles are smaller, lighter, and can pack more of a punch.
And yet the new Naval railgun can cause the same damage as current cruise missiles for a fraction of the cost and weight. How odd.
[quote]That's the beauty of the missile, it does just what you want it to do; if you want it to blow up a half a city then load it with a small nuke, if you want it to blow up just a hous then stick a few small conventional explosives in it.
Of course, it's not like we can fit small nukes in cannon shells if we really needed to...oh wait (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_artillery)...
And then there's the whole thing about railguns needing a buttload of power to work. More than it takes to set off a missile.
Which the pseudo-battleship would have, since it'd probably be designed with a nuclear reactor.

Big railguns are fucking expenisve.
So are missiles; each Tomahawk fired costs $1 million, versus a smaller $1000 shell without the expensive engine or warheads.

A guided projectile? Why didn't I think of it before?!...Oh wait, that's a missile.
Wrong, shells can and have been fitted with guidence fins before, the only challenge for a railgun shell is ensuring the electronics survive the high g-forces involved with going at such intense velocities.

Carrier-launched CAS aircraft are just so much better for this. Shells are alright. Cluster bombs are much better.
Carrier-launched CAS aircraft which can be shot down by enemy forces. A bit harder to do that against an artillery shell ;)


How's about first consider the facts on the matter, such as the fact that putting enormous nuclear reactors on ships to power railguns would be utterly unfeasible, the amount of maintainance needed to keep them from jamming up would be immense, and in the sea, what with... you know... water and all getting near them, they'd be completely buggered up within hours.
Funny, the current nuclear navies of the world seem to have no problem with their nuclear-powered ships.


I hope you realise that most railgun ideas are working on pellets of a size about 2mm across. Don't, for one second, assume that you're firing 6 or 7" shells out of there.
And I assumed that...where?

You'd need a miles-long particle accellerator to make that the beginnings of work, the electromagnetic currents caused would give burns to anyone wearing any metal at all (from the metals spinning so hard) and the power drain would mean that you might as well have brought a couple of city-scale power stations with you.
And you said I knew nothing about railguns :rolleyes:

A guided 16" shell with fins might as well be considered some kind of suicide UAV, plus I'm pretty unsure of how you'd get fins on it without having to have some kind of sabot that makes it into a 40-ish" shell, which would just be ludicrous, as well as an expensive waste of time.
Because obviously, my entire argument was for giant 16" railguns. I'm sure you'd be more then kind enough to point out where in my posts I argued that.

A missile has the advantage that it packs a hell of a punch inside a small package, it can be properly guided and skilled operators with a lot of simulated training can be extremely accurate.
And a railgun shell has the advantage that it can pack the same punch for a fraction of the cost, can't be as easily shot down, and can't malfunction and, at best, turn out to be a dud (and at worst, well, "big boom")

Piss away billions on floating phalluses? Sounds like a wonderful idea. While you're at it, why not try deploying some of these (http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/4/48/Metal_Gear_Solid_-_Metal_Gear_REX.jpg)

Piss away billions on floating phalluses? Sounds like a wonderful idea. While you're at it, why not try deploying some of these (http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/4/48/Metal_Gear_Solid_-_Metal_Gear_REX.jpg)

too easy :)

Ah, apparently I missed some posts. Thanks Lt Cody. :)

It would have been better if they had made it an armour and infantry only transport (perhaps a packed helicopter as well) and have a submersible aircraft carrier for air support. Having aircraft deployment and capture systems probably take up a disproportionate amount of space.

I'd see those kind of craft more as elite force deployments (until you can mass produce them), so they would used for deep strike attacks and combat construction/preparation.

A forward swept wing fighter would also be nice to see. The russian one won't come out for a while and the civilian one (a Cessna I think) won't be out for a while either.

still cost a fare bit to make

still cost a fare bit to make

All of them or a particular one?

I'd say the one that is the best for the amount of money would be the transport sub (due to it being flexible and useful as a 'behind enemy lines' tool).

Whilst the carrier would be increadibly expensive to make it would be safer than if it were on the surface, especially if it could launch planes from under water (perhaps in a pod system similar to cruise missiles?).

FSW would be usful for the manuverability of the structure and would be a good wing design for a ramjet plane. That and if it needed to have horizontally folded wings you could use airbrakes to help force the wings out (though that would require a strong airframe).

All of them or a particular one?

I'd say the one that is the best for the amount of money would be the transport sub (due to it being flexible and useful as a 'behind enemy lines' tool).

Whilst the carrier would be increadibly expensive to make it would be safer than if it were on the surface, especially if it could launch planes from under water (perhaps in a pod system similar to cruise missiles?).

FSW would be usful for the manuverability of the structure and would be a good wing design for a ramjet plane. That and if it needed to have horizontally folded wings you could use airbrakes to help force the wings out (though that would require a strong airframe).

going with line of thinking now days all

Ah, I misread what you typed. I thought you said that they still cost too much, whoops.

Ah, I misread what you typed. I thought you said that they still cost too much, whoops.

they all have the case of "we can't have one,we got to have them all"

FSW aircraft are within current military budgets, it is only the foldingwing ones that would be expensive (when compared to current stock).

The other two are way off though I admit.

FSW aircraft are within current military budgets, it is only the foldingwing ones that would be expensive (when compared to current stock).

The other two are way off though I admit.

just look what going on with picking a new navy destroy

just look what going on with picking a new navy destroy

By military budget I meant worldwide, not just Australia.

I admit I am not up to speed with the destroyer (unless this about those ships which had tonnes of faults a couple of years ago).

For another waste, what about the F-18 stopgap measure whilst waiting for the F35 (which won't have nearly as much coverage as our old planes)?

By military budget I meant worldwide, not just Australia.

I admit I am not up to speed with the destroyer (unless this about those ships which had tonnes of faults a couple of years ago).
it's between a new costly navy destroyer plan that's on the board and a spanish plan that been around for a bit and lest costly if i recall right
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21304930-31477,00.html

For another waste, what about the F-18 stopgap measure whilst waiting for the F35 (which won't have nearly as much coverage as our old planes)?

F35 is a waste of time and money for us

Think how much a 16" shell weighs. Now consider how much it will slow down within, ooo, ten or so seconds?

The missile's looking faster.


Where does weight, or mass, even come into it?

it's between a new costly navy destroyer plan that's on the board and a spanish plan that been around for a bit and lest costly if i recall right
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21304930-31477,00.html

That article made the U.S version sound better... though at that price tag? Ouch.

F35 is a waste of time and money for us

Exactly. We would be better off getting a european plane, even with the ground infrastructure change needed if we are going to replace all our fighters/fighter-bombers.