World Affairs Board - View Single Post - Future Battleship/Capital Ship Discussion

-{SpoonmaN}- · 06-05-2007, 10:04 AM

Yeah, I think pretty much every body knows how to do sounding and, y'know, maths. That and the composite hull is probably unessecary, since the Iowas are pretty much impenetrible as I understand it, and it would probably be cheaper to make a massive armoured steal hull than a massive armoured composite hull. Anyway thats my two cents, just stating the obvious really.
If this thing were to survive on a modern conventional hull, it would have to rely on active defences and the best of ECM. Which the USN has in spades so I guess that's doable, but then again it would really be a floating gun platform, which is exactly what BBs are useful for. That's all they've been any good for since Midway.

06-05-2007, 10:04 AM	#14 (permalink)
-{SpoonmaN}- Death, the Destroyer of Worlds... *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 09-08-04 Location: The badlands of West London. Posts: 1,455 Country:	Yeah, I think pretty much every body knows how to do sounding and, y'know, maths. That and the composite hull is probably unessecary, since the Iowas are pretty much impenetrible as I understand it, and it would probably be cheaper to make a massive armoured steal hull than a massive armoured composite hull. Anyway thats my two cents, just stating the obvious really. If this thing were to survive on a modern conventional hull, it would have to rely on active defences and the best of ECM. Which the USN has in spades so I guess that's doable, but then again it would really be a floating gun platform, which is exactly what BBs are useful for. That's all they've been any good for since Midway. __________________ "I have this to say to the people of Australia: Kick me, I'm different." Last edited by -{SpoonmaN}- : 06-05-2007 at 10:07 AM.