Battleships
- Thread starter the great white north
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Still waiting for you to tell us what your swiss army knife comment has to do with NGS...
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
sledge said:
nah we will make it easy for Genesis, we will give him loading Mk46s on CP140s....
and he is gone....
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Warships in the old days were used by countries to project power overseas.
While only dealing with surface warships only able to effectively use guns, the Battleships were king...
However, with the advent of missiles and modern technology, the Battleship isn't all that effective at projecting a nation's power...
Frigates, Destroyers & Cruisers have the potential to deliver the destructive power as a WW2 Battleship - at a fraction of the cost ( crew, Oil, supplies).
The aircraft carrier with it's air wing projects power
The Nuclear balistic submarine with is's missiles projects power.
While only dealing with surface warships only able to effectively use guns, the Battleships were king...
However, with the advent of missiles and modern technology, the Battleship isn't all that effective at projecting a nation's power...
Frigates, Destroyers & Cruisers have the potential to deliver the destructive power as a WW2 Battleship - at a fraction of the cost ( crew, Oil, supplies).
The aircraft carrier with it's air wing projects power
The Nuclear balistic submarine with is's missiles projects power.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
genesis98 said:
You still have not backed up your claim that NGS is obsolete...if you can't back it up withdraw your comment. The only thing you proved was your were speaking outside your lane.
A
aesop081
Guest
geo said:
This is still true today .
A
aesop081
Guest
Paul W... said:
Ok....a BB has a crew of almost 2000 on board. They cost millions of dollars to operate ( let alone build, maintain, upgrade, refit....whatever). All that expense to simply provide NGS that is limited in range for operations that can only be done near a coastline. A battleship would be of no use to the Marines in Afghanistan and would be of no use to US forces in most of Iraq. The only weapon that the battleship brings to the fight in both these cases is cruise missiles and there are plenty of other USN ships capable of firing those as well as USAF aircraft.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Yes it's expensive to operate a fleet of them and they're not likey to be pulled of retirement or will new ones be bought,so I'm not holding my breathe.
But for a beach landing they'd more than likely pay for themselves by saving many ground troops and aircrews lives as they would deliver massive and nearly on time fire support and most importantly win the battle.
If I was in charge I'd spend that extra money.
But for a beach landing they'd more than likely pay for themselves by saving many ground troops and aircrews lives as they would deliver massive and nearly on time fire support and most importantly win the battle.
If I was in charge I'd spend that extra money.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Paul W... said:
What are you arguing for..close air support or battleships?
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Your right..their time is definitely now past.Paul W... said:
Massive firepower does not always win battles. A team effort between aircraft with PGMs and accurate naval launched weapons does the same as 12 to 16 inch guns.
Well where would Canada get those 2000 sailors to man one battleship let alone the fleet you advocate? Going to an NGS role only for the Navy is just plain shortsighted....
A
aesop081
Guest
Paul W... said:
We're not talking about "extra money" here......we're talking about billions of dollars and manpower needs that the US military is incapable of filling. All that to provide a limited capability that other assets already deliver in one way or another.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
The US plans are now for using only aircraft and cruise missiles in beach landing operations,but I'm sure the Marines would probably like to have six to eight Battleships to support an operation as they would be quicker to respond to the need for fire support until they can land the artillery.
I'm not thinking in terms of what I'd do if I was in charge of Canada as we have no Marines,I'm thinking about what I'd do if I was in charge in the US.
I'm not thinking in terms of what I'd do if I was in charge of Canada as we have no Marines,I'm thinking about what I'd do if I was in charge in the US.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Paul W... said:
Really? Where is the proof of that?
Similar threads
