Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 4 of 6  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
Author Message
klagldsf
Post subject: Re: Battleship Design FunPosted: February 26th, 2012, 1:10 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2765
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 4:14 pm
There's a reason why one of the factors of the capabilities of UAVs is at least in part its expendability - i.e. how cheap they are.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Demon Lord Razgriz
Post subject: Re: Battleship Design FunPosted: February 26th, 2012, 1:25 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 446
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 1:18 am
Location: Eastern North Carolina
The only slight chance of a return of a battleship is with railguns, and even then I wonder what would be more effective. 1 8-gun railgun battleship or 8 1-gun railgun destroyers?

_________________
95% of my drawings are destined for NS, 4.9% for fun, & .1% serious.
Worklist:
Space Shuttle
Atlas V
Delta II/III
Project Constellation
Soyuz series


Last edited by Demon Lord Razgriz on February 26th, 2012, 1:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
SHIPDUDE
Post subject: Re: Battleship Design FunPosted: February 26th, 2012, 1:26 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 145
Joined: February 17th, 2012, 5:42 am
Colosseum wrote:
[ img ]

[ img ]
:roll:

That's not a realistic space battleship at all.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Erusia Force
Post subject: Re: Battleship Design FunPosted: February 26th, 2012, 1:26 am
Offline
Posts: 440
Joined: January 18th, 2012, 9:09 pm
Location: Virginia, USA
Colosseum wrote:
[ img ]

[ img ]

:o :lol: :lol: :lol: I seriously just lolled, and coughed up a lung :oops:


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Erusia Force
Post subject: Re: Battleship Design FunPosted: February 26th, 2012, 1:28 am
Offline
Posts: 440
Joined: January 18th, 2012, 9:09 pm
Location: Virginia, USA
Did I hear d-1000 Zumwalt?? It probably just me..


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: Battleship Design FunPosted: February 26th, 2012, 1:28 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
True, for the type of UAVs were currently deploying, but an UAV with F-35 capabilities won't be cheap. After all, the only thing you can do without is the bang seat, canopy and manual controls. Those are hardly big tickets compared to all the other stuff that goes into a jet.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Demon Lord Razgriz
Post subject: Re: Battleship Design FunPosted: February 26th, 2012, 1:29 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 446
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 1:18 am
Location: Eastern North Carolina
Please don't quote those large images, they're needless.

_________________
95% of my drawings are destined for NS, 4.9% for fun, & .1% serious.
Worklist:
Space Shuttle
Atlas V
Delta II/III
Project Constellation
Soyuz series


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Erusia Force
Post subject: Re: Battleship Design FunPosted: February 26th, 2012, 1:33 am
Offline
Posts: 440
Joined: January 18th, 2012, 9:09 pm
Location: Virginia, USA
Thiel wrote:
Erusia Force wrote:
hell Im actually against the construction of nuclear carriers because they're TOO BIG AND EXPENSIVE! (we should revert to small carriers and UAVs, that would be more than enough and save us billions.)
Not if you want it to perform the same mission as the current carriers. First of all if you want the UAVs to take over the role of manned aircraft then they'll need the same performance as the aircraft they're replacing. As a result it wouldn't be any smaller, any cheaper or any less maintenance intensive. There's a reason why UAVs are still restricted to surveillance and COIN roles.
As a result you'll need a carrier about the same size as the current one to deploy the same number of aircraft. A fully loaded Nimitz has an aircrew in the vicinity of 250 people at most. Ad some catering and service personnel and you could conceivably remove three hundred people from the crew. Of course a lot of those people will be replaced by additional technicians and maybe a few pilots to remote control the UAVs just in case. What you won't see is a reduction in mechanics and deck personnel. Remember, we're dealing with fast jets here and until you come up with a robotic mechanic you'll still need brown shirts, red shirts, purple shirts, yellow shirts and white shirts.
In conclusion, as long as the US Government wants the navy to be able to do what it does now an all UAV force won't confer anywhere near the amount of savings people talk about.
The problem is that with the exception of a few high altitude recce birds UAVs have by and large replaced low-end aircraft were crew cost is a major factor. Once you get into fast jets the pilots wages becomes peanuts compared to all the other operating costs.
Then why build more when we have more than enough?


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: Battleship Design FunPosted: February 26th, 2012, 1:40 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
Erusia Force wrote:
Then why build more when we have more than enough?
Because they won't last forever and because the skilled manpower to build them will disappear if construction isn't kept up. Look at all the trouble the Brits have had with the CVF and before that the Astute. And you'll note they aren't actually building more, they're building replacements. The Gerald R. Ford will replace the Enterprise and the John F. Kennedy will replace the Nimitz.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Carthaginian
Post subject: Re: Battleship Design FunPosted: February 26th, 2012, 1:47 am
Offline
Posts: 587
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 7:25 pm
Location: Daphne, Alabama, C.S.A.
Erusia Force wrote:
I am not green to the point that I would suggest that the US Navy build such vessels, hell I'm actually against the construction of nuclear carriers because they're TOO BIG AND EXPENSIVE! (we should revert to small carriers and UAVs, that would be more than enough and save us billions.)
UAV's are very expensive in terms of combat capabilities. They lack the flexibility of a piloted aircraft and are able to operate with great effectiveness only those unable to intercept them. They can rather easily be jammed, intercepted by a properly equipped enemy, and even- and though it hasn't been done yet, this is possible- control wrested from their operators by the enemy.

The nuclear-powered super carrier is probably the most economical strategic asset that we possess at the moment. Considering the amount of firepower embarked, the versatility of use and the non-combat usefulness of such a platform... they become more than just a weapon system that costs money and only produces dividends during combat. Intimidation tactics, humanitarian missions, hauling the luggage and vehicles of PCSing families... super carriers are really cheap when you get right down to it.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 4 of 6  [ 53 posts ]  Return to “Off Topic” | Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]