 |
|
st_swithin
|
|
10069
Nov 2002 time: 05:30
|
|
Vin diesel.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
yavoon
|
|
quote: Originally posted by skywalker
No, I mean it is a relatively similar way of achieving the same result that is at most just as effective and is not as versatile. A carrier can do anything a battleship can and more. Thus, a battleship is a waste of money. |
a battleship can fill a role MUCH cheaper and in some cases safer than a carrier. and it is devastatingly effective.
it is not redundancy. it is correct force application.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
st_swithin
|
|
10069
Nov 2002 time: 05:30
|
|
What about all the excess fat they got off Al Roker and Starr?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
st_swithin
|
|
10069
Nov 2002 time: 05:30
|
|
Hi Willis!!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Elok
|
 |
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003 time: 00:30
|
|
I'm not sure if St. Swithin was responding to me with that pipe bomb post, but then I rarely am so I'll answer it anyway, along with Skywalker's.
The point I was trying to make wasn't that it's another cool way to strike from hiding, but that it would in essence be the equivalent of old-time privateers: the possibility of unprovoked attack without fear of scandal due to the government's ability to completely disavow the event. Sabotage carries the risk of your saboteurs being caught and put on an embarassing trial in which you could be named. You can't squeeze a confession out of an explosive shell from a rail gun. The only incriminating evidence would be the blast pattern and shrapnel from the wreckage of the ship, so the shells would have to be carefully made to contain common elements in their casing and explode VERY hard to obscure their point of entry. If the ship that launches them has stealth capabilities, the target country would be in theory unable to prove the presence of any of your ships within striking distance so any blame would be very tenuous. Lingering fishiness from the forensics reports would be a slight problem, as would a conscience attack on the crew of your ship, but that's about it. Possibly you could blame anomalies on contamination from the environment or the investigative team, I don't know. Practical privateering. I don't know how much you can learn from an investigation of a bombed area, but maybe discreet bombardment of land targets would be possible as well. There are enough factions of crazies in this world to lay the blame on provided we didn't overdo it.
Note that I'm not condoning this or advising it, I'm just saying it's possible and might be judged as worth the expense for the sake of good public policy and limited license to kill.
Oh, and assuming that whatever equivalent the target had to the AEGIS system couldn't catch a rail-gun shell. I guess that would be a big problem...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
st_swithin
|
|
10069
Nov 2002 time: 05:30
|
|
I am Jack's growling tummy.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
st_swithin
|
|
10069
Nov 2002 time: 05:30
|
|
Hi Toby!!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
blackice
|
 |
Canada where else...
Sep 2000 time: 00:30
|
|
Navy announces DD(X) S-Band radar decision
The Navy decided July 30 to use S-Band rather than L-Band technology for the volume search radar that will be on the next-generation destroyer, DD(X). This higher frequency radar will improve the ability of the destroyer to track aircraft and missiles and to counterattack shore-based gun or missile batteries that attempt to strike the ship. “The shift to S-Band technology is a very carefully considered, logical decision,” according to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Research Development and Acquisition, John Young.
DD(X) will be designed to perform in multiple warfare areas, and its original missions are unchanged. Foremost, DD(X) will support troops ashore by performing precision strike and fire support.
The change will be effected through a contract modification to the existing contract with Northrop Grumman Ship Systems. Raytheon and Lockheed Martin are sub-contractors under the contract.
link
Definition of Littoral Warfare
The ability to mass overwhelming joint and allied military force and deliver it ashore to influence, deter, contain, or defeat an aggressor. Expeditionary maneuver forces, surface fires, air wings, mine warfare forces and Special Operations Forces provide the joint task force with the ability to conduct military operations anywhere in the world that is within several hundred miles of the sea. Supporting coalition naval forces provide anti-submarine, anti-surface, and anti-air capability. The littoral area of control extends from the open ocean, to the shore, and to those inland areas that can be attacked, supported and defended directly from the sea.
link
link
All in all a great idea, seems to me the future of limited combat. After all the theme of the day is the dictator/little guy combat.
How this will fair with large battles I.E. nukes is unknown.
Last edited by blackice on 31-08-2003 at 23:43
|
|
|  |
 |
|
st_swithin
|
|
10069
Nov 2002 time: 05:30
|
|
I'll buy that for a dollar.
|
|
|  |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|