 |
|
st_swithin
|
|
10069
Nov 2002 time: 05:30
|
|
Like Vezzini might not say, "Never engage in a land war in Asia. But only second less well-known is not locking intellectual horns with a Sicilian!!"
|
|
|  |
 |
|
pchang
|
 |
Cupertino?
Aug 1999 time: 05:30
|
|
They don't exist outside of small versions in the lab. However, we do have microwave projectors powerful enough to fry computer chips and such from about 30 meters or so. That would be enough to disable any modern car. They take a lot of power so you would need to have a trunk full of capacitors and steadily bleed power from the alternator/generator system in the car. This might make your batteries wear out faster. As for gravity, we have no way to manipulate it other than to gather and move around objects with lots of mass.
Last edited by pchang on 31-08-2003 at 02:22
|
|
|  |
 |
|
st_swithin
|
|
10069
Nov 2002 time: 05:30
|
|
Have a Guiness. Irish doctors prescribe one pint a day for good health.
NyQuil is good if you have a cold. And there's always Robitussin.
Moe.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
yavoon
|
|
quote: Originally posted by PLATO
I think that there is a reason that the US keeps bringing the battleships back. They are excellent platforms for just about any weapon system you could imagine. The real asset in them is that armour plating. Most anti-ship missles would leave little more than a black spot on them. I have seen some ideas put forth about removing the aft turrent and installing a Harrier Hanger and Aegis technology on the superstructure. As close support for a shore landing it would be an unbeatable force. IIRC it is the propulsion systems that keep them fro being reconfigured. When the cost for that is figured in with the other upgrades, then it becomes much more cost effective to build several new ships that can have multiple tasks, such as the ship being discussed in this thread. |
we could have tugs tow the battleships! u think I"m joking too! but I aint.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
yavoon
|
|
quote: Originally posted by elijah
Yavoon: Or just a hell of a large engine! One that would make a car park full of lambos sound like a dying cat.
I'm fantasising now, but can you blame me? |
battleships are cool, and very useful. 18 inch normal artillery fired 20 miles inland is hellish to deal w/. its cheaper than f 22 and then we can use the term gunship diplomacy again.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
PLATO

|
 |
Of the occupied South
Dec 2002 time: 23:30
|
|
quote: Originally posted by elijah
PLATO: Consider that the last operation US battleship (the Missouri?) was decommissioned after the first Gulf War, after being built in WWII.
60 years of tech have passed. Imagine the holy sweet mother of god we can unleash upon those pesky Japanese.
We would need to build big I think, perhaps upwards of 60'000 tons. Attention would need to be paid to what killed off the old battleships, namely air power. As such, some killer AA systems, including perhaps some method of defeating stealth. Either some kind of magnetic or trans-EM system, or maybe conventional radar that would shoot down any seagull travelling at over 180mph.
Besides, the overriding reason... they look so damn good! |
More to the point...those pesky N. Koreans!
I am very anxious to see the size of the Crusier that is briefly being mentioned in the article, although I doubt that it would approach anywhere near 60,000 tons. It is probably a good thing that point defense systems handle misles better than armour at a fraction of the cost, The Battleships were beautiful!!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
st_swithin
|
|
10069
Nov 2002 time: 05:30
|
|
I'd never go out with a guy who had a boat called "Myott."
|
|
|  |
 |
|
yavoon
|
|
quote: Originally posted by skywalker
Or, you could build a carrier and have its planes provide close air support... |
a floating 18 inch gun platform is cheaper than a carrier full of f18's.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
yavoon
|
|
quote: Originally posted by skywalker
Yeah, but what kinda range does it have? 20, 30 miles? A carrier can attack anything within over a thousand kilometers. |
yes, thats what u get when u cough up the money for a carrier. only the US has a real sized carrier. France's is smaller and britain has pseudo carriers.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
st_swithin
|
|
10069
Nov 2002 time: 05:30
|
|
AND it's got camo. I CAN'T EVEN SEE IT!!!!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
yavoon
|
|
quote: Originally posted by skywalker
So, while carriers cost more, they can deliver more power further. Plus they have an inherent defense against air attacks.
Obviously, the carrier group is the most versatile, powerful way to project force. |
its not an either or question though. I wouldn't say "**** carriers lets build only battleships." tho u seem to be blind enuff to think that.
I am saying that battleships or probably more accurately, large floating artillery is useful. can be used for devastating effect. and should be around as part of the US arsenal.
this forum antagonizes ppl so quickly. like omg. jump off my **** plz.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
st_swithin
|
|
10069
Nov 2002 time: 05:30
|
|
You don't have any ****.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
yavoon
|
|
quote: Originally posted by skywalker
I think "large floating artillery" would be redundant with a carrier. |
If u mean it is a different way of achieving a similar result(blow crap up) then OMG UR RIGHT. lets not overlook that redundancy is ingrown into the millitary as much as bad haircuts.
the idea of implementing the correct measure to the correct situation implies the need of redundancy unless u have an infinitely malleable tool. and the carrier is not that.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
st_swithin
|
|
10069
Nov 2002 time: 05:30
|
|
You can make a decent pipe bomb by scraping the celluloid off the backs of playing cards, placing it inside a closed cylinder, and using a lit cigarette as the fuse.
Orange juice concentrate and gasoline don't make napalm.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30. Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|