World Affairs Board - View Single Post

maximusslade · 04-25-2008, 12:26 PM

Grape, you, despite everything that has been said about the ship, are the only one who is causing my head to ache. First off, I have never insinuated that this ship is designed to be the be all end all of fire support. To do so would just be foolish.

Evolving amphibious doctrine over the past 15 years? I know I am not close to the big wigs and amphibious world, but when was the last time we landed troops on a beach against a first rate military that is shooting back at us? Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't our last contested assault in Somalia against the forces of CNN and NBC? Or was it Grenada or Lebanon? Unless my history is off, I dont know of anyone trying to stop us at the beach. Again, unless my history was wrong, our last large scale amphibious assault was Korea?

So yeah, you were 250-300 miles from the beach and you wanted naval gunfire support? The new rocket propelled 155mm round it supposed to have a range of what, 100 miles? Even with a fleet of Zumwalts you'd be tough out of luck, and yes that even goes for my crazy BB design. Personally, I feel the navy is trying to push gun technology too far. A gun barrel is made for shooting rounds, not rockets. If you want fire support 350 miles inland, bring your own damned artillery or build more AC-130s!

As for your lovely comment about sinking an entire battlegroup. I dont care what kind of battlegroup you are in, whether it is centered around a BB or a CV, submarines are always a threat. So dont be a jerk. Any tin can sailor knows that his ship is there to take the bullet for the big ship in the middle, whether it is a CV or BB.

In an age when a DD can pack the firepower to sink a CV or any other large ship, perhaps armor is the answer. Maybe the answer is massive fleet of DDG's and CG's, but they should be armored. These ships are billion dollar assets that wont be churned out in,"Down the ways in 80 days" fashion.

Also I should correct myself, the PRIMARY mission of this ship is sinking other ships, then its secondary role is raining steel on a beach.

From here on out, I will continue to develop my BCGN idea. It is obvious that most viewers of this thread are way too focused on the BB part of it. But that probably won't matter. I started this thread as a discussion of how a futuristic BB may be built. I never friggin asked IF it SHOULD be built. That being said, since the Constitution idea is the latest and greatest, I will continue on with that.

Here are the rules... NO HATERS. If you are a anti BB or an anti gun nut in general, I don't want to hear from you. Don't mistake this for me thinking that guns are the be all end all. I have a deep respect for all weapons of war. I have issues with folks who claim that subs are the answer to naval warfare and those who say that who needs a surface navy when you have carriers. I am tired of ignorant statements like that. All weapons are needed and will always be needed, down from the infantry man with his rifle right on up to the President with his nuclear weapons. This thread is about filling a hole in the arsenal of the United States that not only should be filled but NEEDS to be filled in the future.

More so, I do not want this thread to turn into a pissing match, full of guys who want to prove how much they think they know than you. Granted I can be a know it all at times, but I have always thouroughly read and thought about every comment everyone has made, and I've agreed with many thoughts and ideas that have come around. But the world is full of folks that feel that the answer to military questions is newer and higher tech weapons. I, take it or leave it, am not one of them. When you want to drive a nail, dont do anything fancy, just hit it with a damn hammer. I know there are times that call for scalpels rather than swords and I understand that, but in the middle of the cold blue ocean or on a beach filled with people who want you dead, bring on the hammer.

So, in closing, I think that my Constitution model is just that hammer, or close to it anyway. It is an armored warship that would be able to better deal with ordinance that is thrown at it. It is a platform that packs a big punch through its use of cruise and antiship missiles and also has the ability to bring heavy (or lighter) ordinance on target quickly and effectivly to a landing zone if it is called to. Now, if anyone has any ideas on how to make a ship like that better I really want to hear from you. If you want to respond and tell me that I am living in a pipe dream or that I am some ignorant dinosaur or are just a hater in general, I DO NOT want to hear from you, at the very least I will not respond.

I do appreciate all the positive comments and criticisms you guys provided that would make this warship better. Please keep them coming. I'd love to hear from actual BB sailors that could give me better information and ideas as to how to lay these ships out. And yes, I would love to hear how to improve upon any faults the Iowas might have had. Yeah I said it, but they were man made machines and therefore not perfect.

04-25-2008, 12:26 PM	#41 (permalink)
maximusslade Patron Join Date: 04-16-08 Posts: 195	Grape, you, despite everything that has been said about the ship, are the only one who is causing my head to ache. First off, I have never insinuated that this ship is designed to be the be all end all of fire support. To do so would just be foolish. Evolving amphibious doctrine over the past 15 years? I know I am not close to the big wigs and amphibious world, but when was the last time we landed troops on a beach against a first rate military that is shooting back at us? Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't our last contested assault in Somalia against the forces of CNN and NBC? Or was it Grenada or Lebanon? Unless my history is off, I dont know of anyone trying to stop us at the beach. Again, unless my history was wrong, our last large scale amphibious assault was Korea? So yeah, you were 250-300 miles from the beach and you wanted naval gunfire support? The new rocket propelled 155mm round it supposed to have a range of what, 100 miles? Even with a fleet of Zumwalts you'd be tough out of luck, and yes that even goes for my crazy BB design. Personally, I feel the navy is trying to push gun technology too far. A gun barrel is made for shooting rounds, not rockets. If you want fire support 350 miles inland, bring your own damned artillery or build more AC-130s! As for your lovely comment about sinking an entire battlegroup. I dont care what kind of battlegroup you are in, whether it is centered around a BB or a CV, submarines are always a threat. So dont be a jerk. Any tin can sailor knows that his ship is there to take the bullet for the big ship in the middle, whether it is a CV or BB. In an age when a DD can pack the firepower to sink a CV or any other large ship, perhaps armor is the answer. Maybe the answer is massive fleet of DDG's and CG's, but they should be armored. These ships are billion dollar assets that wont be churned out in,"Down the ways in 80 days" fashion. Also I should correct myself, the PRIMARY mission of this ship is sinking other ships, then its secondary role is raining steel on a beach. From here on out, I will continue to develop my BCGN idea. It is obvious that most viewers of this thread are way too focused on the BB part of it. But that probably won't matter. I started this thread as a discussion of how a futuristic BB may be built. I never friggin asked IF it SHOULD be built. That being said, since the Constitution idea is the latest and greatest, I will continue on with that. Here are the rules... NO HATERS. If you are a anti BB or an anti gun nut in general, I don't want to hear from you. Don't mistake this for me thinking that guns are the be all end all. I have a deep respect for all weapons of war. I have issues with folks who claim that subs are the answer to naval warfare and those who say that who needs a surface navy when you have carriers. I am tired of ignorant statements like that. All weapons are needed and will always be needed, down from the infantry man with his rifle right on up to the President with his nuclear weapons. This thread is about filling a hole in the arsenal of the United States that not only should be filled but NEEDS to be filled in the future. More so, I do not want this thread to turn into a pissing match, full of guys who want to prove how much they think they know than you. Granted I can be a know it all at times, but I have always thouroughly read and thought about every comment everyone has made, and I've agreed with many thoughts and ideas that have come around. But the world is full of folks that feel that the answer to military questions is newer and higher tech weapons. I, take it or leave it, am not one of them. When you want to drive a nail, dont do anything fancy, just hit it with a damn hammer. I know there are times that call for scalpels rather than swords and I understand that, but in the middle of the cold blue ocean or on a beach filled with people who want you dead, bring on the hammer. So, in closing, I think that my Constitution model is just that hammer, or close to it anyway. It is an armored warship that would be able to better deal with ordinance that is thrown at it. It is a platform that packs a big punch through its use of cruise and antiship missiles and also has the ability to bring heavy (or lighter) ordinance on target quickly and effectivly to a landing zone if it is called to. Now, if anyone has any ideas on how to make a ship like that better I really want to hear from you. If you want to respond and tell me that I am living in a pipe dream or that I am some ignorant dinosaur or are just a hater in general, I DO NOT want to hear from you, at the very least I will not respond. I do appreciate all the positive comments and criticisms you guys provided that would make this warship better. Please keep them coming. I'd love to hear from actual BB sailors that could give me better information and ideas as to how to lay these ships out. And yes, I would love to hear how to improve upon any faults the Iowas might have had. Yeah I said it, but they were man made machines and therefore not perfect. __________________ Hit Hard, Hit Fast, Hit Often...