Forum whore
Some of the smaller guns could inflict greater damage due to a higher rate of firing, providing they were within range and the 14/16/18" guns didnt always hit the target. I guess if a 16" projectile landed close enough,, well, as the Mayor of Hiroshima would've said " OOOH, watta fuck was that?"
" Rule books are for the Guidance of the Wise, and the Obedience of Fools"
"channellling the Pleideans"
I read a really interesting article recently about the utility of aircraft carriers and the economics of keeping them at sea. The argument was that in current and anticipated global conflict, your aircraft carrier and its associated carrier group becomes something of a liability because several billion dollars worth of ships are at risk from some ragheads with cruise missiles (or whatever). The counter argument of course is that a carrier group is about force projection, and particularly if you have boots on the ground in buttfuckistan its useful to have the group offshore with the capability of fucking things up big time.Originally Posted by Winston001
I find all this stuff very interesting.
I thought elections were decided by angry posts on social media. - F5 Dave
Wearing Hi-Viz Black.
The chinese have developed an anti-carrier missile system. It appears based on a ballistic missile with targeting head.
In the Gobi desert there is a carrier-shaped target painted on the ground that is beleived used for testing this system.
Also, speaking of technology that has been withdrawn from service; I see the last A-10 has departed Europe.
Designed for exterminating the Soviet tanks crossing the European plains, the Hog is being upgraded with all the latest bells and whistles. I wonder if they remembered to put an autopilot in this time?
TOP QUOTE: “The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”
"channellling the Pleideans"
why do they even need squashy meat-sacks aka pilots. UAV's are the future. Well, until Skynet goes live then we're all rooted.
I thought elections were decided by angry posts on social media. - F5 Dave
Forum whore
True taht. I spent 3 months on a 90 mtr ice class trawler in the Southern ocean, lattitudes south of Heard Island.
It was, erm, interesting to say the least. You can't even take a dump safely in heavy seas & we had 3 days of 30mtr average wave height. Ugh. Just my luck.
Manopausal.
Talk shit. Get hit
The old tactical shit. For a real challenge try take a piss standing up, no spillage for maximum pointsYou can't even take a dump safely in heavy seas & we had 3 days of 30mtr average wave height. Ugh. Just my luck.
Come warm yourself by the fire
What about the ones that never were.
I am truely saddened that no one pursued Wing-in-Ground/Water Warships
The Caspian Sea monster firing rockets would put the fear in any man on a boat.
What is the difference between destroyer and frigate? US seem to only have a clear difference - destroyers have more guns.
Reactor Online. Sensors Online. Weapons Online. All Systems Nominal.
Psyclepath
There's a clear size difference in the Royal Navy - a Type 23 Frigate is under 5000 tons displacement, the new Type 45 Destroyers are 8000 (although the Type 45's weren't so much bigger than the Frigates). They also have different roles, Frigates are primarily anti-submarine and the Destroyers are anti-aircraft, and have a complement of Marines as well.
Only a homo puts an engine back together WITHOUT making it go faster.
Bogeyman
Originally frigates were general purpose support vessels, they carried a high percentage of marines and would often be dispatched alone to deal with issues that either didn't require a full capital ship or where close in-shore work was needed.
They provided martial authority in various protectorates and colonies when the local governor or an allied ruler needed a bit of clout. They were often used in coastal raids and British frigates cut many French ships out from French ports and had them away.
Almost all single ship engagements of the Napoleonic wars were frigate actions, the big men-of-war almost always engaged as a fleet.
A destroyer was originally a task-specific vessel, built and armed for escort duty, either as fleet out-riders or to escort merchant fleets.
Go soothingly on the grease mud, as there lurks the skid demon
I'ma get medieval on your ass!
The thing is, the Caspian Sea monster plane/boat only functioned on calm waters. I agree with you that it is a fascinating concept but the USSR couldn't make it work on the ocean. The Americans got a shock when their satellites spotted it.
http://www.yurock.net/russian-tank-ship-plane/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUTWWsh6iGA
I'ma get medieval on your ass!
China despite its mind boggling population does not have the military ability to project force. For 50 years China has been focused inward on protecting its borders safe in the knowledge that it has nuclear weapons which tend to discourage other nations.
No doubt that will change but not quickly. The dominant sea power is the USA and they will be very aware of Chinese technology - and how to defeat it.
Oh yeah!! The Warthog is getting an upgrade? Excellent news. A 30mm gatlting gun with an airframe built around it. Well ok, a Spectre is even more interesting but nice to see these "old" planes out there scorching battlefields.
Wearing Hi-Viz Black.
1: China is already projecting force. The warships parked next to any rock or shoal projecting above the surface and being "claimed" by them is proof. Within 200km of the Philippines this is happening, along with hassling Japan and a few other neighbours.
Then we have their entertainment in the Indian Ocean...
2: 28 May 2013: The last American A-10 attack aircraft has left Europe. A-10s were designed during the Cold War for combat against Russian ground forces in Europe.
That war never happened, but the A-10 proved to be a formidable combat aircraft in post-Cold War conflicts, first in the 1991 liberation of Kuwait and later in Afghanistan and Iraq. During the last decade the most requested ground support aircraft in Afghanistan has been the A-10.
There was similar A-10 affection in Iraq.
Troops from all nations quickly came to appreciate the unique abilities of this 1970s era aircraft that the U.S. Air Force has several times tried to retire. Two years ago the air force did announce that it was retiring 102 A-10s, leaving 243 in service. At the same time the air force accelerated the upgrading of the remaining A-10s to the A-10C standard.
Also called the PE (for precision engagement) model, the refurbished A-10s are supposed to remain in service until 2028, meaning most A-10Cs will have served over 40 years and as many as 16,000 flight hours. The upgrade effort has been underway for over five years. The upgrades include new electronics as well as structural and engine refurbishment. The A-10C provides the pilot with the same targeting and fire control gadgets the latest fighters have. The new A-10C cockpit has all the spiffy colour displays and easy to use controls. Because it is a single-seat aircraft that flies close to the ground (something that requires a lot more concentration), all the automation in the cockpit allows the pilot to do a lot more, with less stress, exertion, and danger.
The basic A-10 is a 1960s design, so the new additions are quite spectacular in comparison. New comms gear has also been added, allowing A-10 pilots to share pix and vids with troops on the ground. The A-10 pilot also has access to the Blue Force Tracker system, so that the nearest friendly ground forces show up on the HUD (Head Up Display) when coming in low to use the 30mm cannon. The A-10 can now use smart bombs, making it a do-it-all aircraft for ground support.
A-10s are worked hard in Afghanistan. For example, an A-10 squadron has a dozen aircraft and 18 pilots. Pilots often average about a hundred hours a month in the air. That's about twenty sorties, as each sortie averages about five hours. The aircraft range all over southern Afghanistan, waiting for troops below to call for some air support. The A-10, nicknamed "Warthog" or just "hog", could always fly low and slow and was designed, and armoured, to survive a lot of ground fire. The troops trust the A-10 more than the F-16 or any other aircraft used for ground support.
The A-10 is a 23 ton, twin engine, single seat aircraft whose primary weapon is a multi-barrel 30mm cannon originally designed to fire armoured piercing shells at Russian tanks. These days the 1,174 30mm rounds are mostly high explosive. The 30mm cannon fires 363 gram (12.7 ounce) rounds at the rate of about 65 a second. The cannon usually fires in one or two second bursts. In addition, the A-10 can carry seven tons of bombs and missiles.
These days the A-10 goes out with smart bombs (GPS and laser guided) and Maverick missiles. It can also carry a targeting pod, enabling the pilot to use high magnification day/night cameras to scour the area for enemy activity. Cruising speed is 560 kilometres an hour and the A-10 can slow down to about 230 kilometres an hour. In Afghanistan two drop tanks are usually carried, to give the aircraft more fuel and maximum time over the battlefield.
If there is another major war in some place like Korea or with Iran, the A-10s will once more be one of the most popular warplane with the ground troops.
TOP QUOTE: “The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”
Come warm yourself by the fire
Yeah but neither did the hovercraft and the russian and americans still pursued that. Hell they even pursued hydrofoils, which is just a dumbed down one.
Effectively the Ekranoplans were hovercraft that used the same fuel but travelled 4 times as fast.
I put in the same class as flying sharks - not practical.......but holy fuck flying sharks!!!!!
Or as the americans put it
"A boat that travels 800kph! the size of a football field? Holy fuck"
"It fires rockets? HOLY FUCK!"
Reactor Online. Sensors Online. Weapons Online. All Systems Nominal.
Wearing Hi-Viz Black.
You sure on that?
England had hovercraft as transportation for a few decades.
The SRN6 and SRN4 were quite successful:
The SR.N4 was the largest hovercraft built to that date, designed to carry 254 passengers in two cabins besides a four-lane automobile bay which held up to 30 cars. Cars were driven from a bow ramp just forward of the cockpit / wheelhouse. The first design was 40 metres (131 ft) long, weighed 190 long tons (193 t), was capable of 83 knots (154 km/h) and could cruise at over 60 knots (111 km/h).
The SR.N4s operated services across the English Channel between 1968 and 2000, until the abolition of duty free made their service unprofitable.
The sea conditions had to be really bad to cancel trips, due to them riding on top of the sea.
There was also the delicious smell of jetfuel around them.
TOP QUOTE: “The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”
Curmudgeon
If I recall correctly, the Russian, Iranian and Royal Navies and the US Marines are still using hovercraft.You sure on that?
England had hovercraft as transportation for a few decades.
The SRN6 and SRN4 were quite successful:
The SR.N4 was the largest hovercraft built to that date, designed to carry 254 passengers in two cabins besides a four-lane automobile bay which held up to 30 cars. Cars were driven from a bow ramp just forward of the cockpit / wheelhouse. The first design was 40 metres (131 ft) long, weighed 190 long tons (193 t), was capable of 83 knots (154 km/h) and could cruise at over 60 knots (111 km/h).
The SR.N4s operated services across the English Channel between 1968 and 2000, until the abolition of duty free made their service unprofitable.
The sea conditions had to be really bad to cancel trips, due to them riding on top of the sea.
There was also the delicious smell of jetfuel around them.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks