MY ideas for a FUTURISTIC BB

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by maximusslade

whoops...

...but rather what I think the Navy WILL need in the future.

The idea is that this ship can carry a massive amount of fire power and armor so that it and others like it can destroy enemy battlegroups AND withstand enemy fire and survive with low loss of life and maintain some combat capability.

So is this a NSFS platform, A Anti-surface platform or just a ship with lots of guns and missiles but no real mission?

[maximusslade]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Both? A warship that can perform multliple missions really well. Isn't that what the Navy wants? Platforms that perform multiple missions? As I designed it, my ship should excell at the gunfire support role and a surface combatant role.

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by maximusslade

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Both? A warship that can perform multliple missions really well. Isn't that what the Navy wants? Platforms that perform multiple missions? As I designed it, my ship should excell at the gunfire support role and a surface combatant role.

Well every class has a "Primary" mission. What is this things "Primary mission"?
And what type of battlegroup do you expect it to sail with?

I'm not trying to nitpick (yet) but mission decides weapons/comm/target acquisition. So far it looks like you stuck as much crap on one hull as you could. Hoping it will cover all the bases.

A design that covers all bases vice designed for one primary (than add if money and space permit) doesn't do anything real good.

And what are your thoughts on weapon engagement. Which works better, or more in line with the Navy/MC ideas of what is needed

[maximusslade]

Yeah, you're nitpicking, LOL. I am beginning to think that some people think I am some punk kid gun nut, but I am not going to get into that. Instead I am going to ask that that viewers pay a little more attention to my "Constitution" battlecruiser, seeing as it is the later of my designs.

As to "primary" missions...I am reluctant to restrict my ship to a single mission. The last dreadnaught designs, i.e. Iowas, North Carolinas, South Dakotas, many would say that their primary mission was to sink other ships, but it turned out that they also excelled at other things such as shore bombardment and antiaircraft batteries. Is that what I am trying to turn my ships into? Not really. It is my goal to design a capital warship that has excellent surface combat capability and shore bombardment capability.





Ok...I am just going to come out with it. Why in hell does the Navy need some 5 or 6" round that shoots a hundred miles?? Sure as hell not to provide gunfire support for an amphibious landing or to provide gunfire support for the Army while they are miles and miles inland. Why do I say this? Where are the targets that landing Marines or soldiers are going to need blown up? What general sends a division into battle without its own artillery? So far as I know, there is no general so foolish, and those targets marines need blown up are on the beach. If there is a target beyond the range of a gun, a TLAM or SLAMMER or whatever ship to ground missle that they wanna use, even aircraft with guided munitions. So why not use aircraft to bust targets on the beach during an assault? My thought is if we are landing on some God forsaken beach that probably, just probably many of our air assets are being used up somewhere else perhaps maintaining air superiority or bombing a bridge or whatever may be required. On top of that tanks and artillery will be landed on the beach as soon as there is room for them when the assault force gets off the beach by that time, when they get out of range of navy guns, they can start using their own artillery to support maneuvers. What I am saying is this, we dont need little shells that fly miles (except MAYBE in the case of special ops missions but I am way in over my head there so I am not even going to talk about that further) what is needed for amphipious assaults is ACCURATE and DEVISTATING firepower that is ready at a moment's notice, not dependant upon an aircraft that has limited fuel, limited ammo, and whose base is miles and miles away. It is my very humble opinion that for proper amphibious gunfire support, a platform is needed that can sit pretty a couple miles off shore and and have 5", 6", 12", or 16" steel headed down range in as much time as it takes for the guns to get trained into position. What about civilians? I want to see a report talking about how many civilians were living amongst the beach installations during the Pacific theater or along the Kuaiti coast while our ships were parked off their coast. Maybe I am waaaaaaay off here or maybe it's cause it's almost midnight. But I think I have a point.


As for the second role of surface combatant? That is more clear cut to me. Design a ship that can cause more damage and take more damage than the other guy. Premise is the same as the old dreadnaught. Sink the other guy through superior fire power and survive through superior range and armor. Who here beleives that the US will rule the waves forever??

Okay, I am going to cool it for now. I am certain I am going to get lambasted for this post but I have to say it. I wonder if there is anyone out there who agrees with me or if I made any sense to anyone.

[SteaminDemon]

Machinery
2 x 250MW pressurized water reactors powering 4 steam generators
4 geared low pressure turbines
4 geared high pressure turbines for 225,000shp
4 8MW Turbine Generators

Now I need you SWO daddys input on this. For back up generators what do they use these days? GTG's or Deisels?

Let me know what you guys think.[/quote]

First off, let me say that is some outstanding and impressive work Maximus, especially it all being done with MS Paint.

As far as propulsion. Would you really want to put reactors on board a battleship?

Instead of 225,000 SHP, why not go for 280,000 SHP? You already have two reactors. I am sure they will be A4W's and are good for 140K SHP each. As far as the geared turbines, the HP and LP Turbines are both connected to the reduction gears The HP and LP Turbines operate with each other and are not necessarily separate (from the HP turbine you have the crossover pipe that goes to the LP turbine). On the ends of the LP you have your reversing elements (makes the ship go in reverse) Don't forget, this being a warship, the reduction gears better be locked train, do not skimp there .

What will you use for your distilling plants? I would say you could go with one 6 stage 100,000 Gallon Per Day Distilling plant and one 125,000 Gallon per Day RO (Reverse Osmosis) plant. Plenty of water. Don't forget to make room for your Make up feed tanks and your pot water tanks. Also, in your design, make sure for the sounding tubes you have for the potable water....just in case it overflows ensure it drains somewhere other than the room where the tubes are (or at least install a drain to the bilge of overboard). Use the radar tank level indicators anyway. No need for someone to manually sound the tanks, waste of time.

If you do decide to go with boilers instead of Nuclear. I would recommend going with a pressurized furnace boiler. More than half the size and weight of a normal sized D-Type Boiler. Ensure the improved baffle design is implemented as well. The only refractory is in the superheater cavity (which by the way, the superheater is removable which makes things easier). There are other design improvements that would need to be implemented as well. Some I have came up with as well, to include the thickening of the upper and lower toroidal headers as well as using stainless for a majority of the tubes. Sure, it may cost a little more, but it will be worth it in the long run.

The boiler would be slightly larger than the original to accommodate and increase in water capacity, as well as an increase in LBS per hour generated (which is important for plant design). The boilers are forced circulation, which will add to the ability of the boiler to have an increase in PPH of steam generated. It can respond much more rapidly to bell changes as well, about just as fast as a GT ship. Startup times will be much quicker as well. Manning for this plant will be less as well. For the Exhaust gas turbine (no forced draft blowers needed, which by the way saves a lot of room as well) it will need to operate off of both steam and air. The exhaust gas turbine generates the positive furnace pressure (65 PSI) and that is where it gets the name "Pressurized furnace boiler", and is is also known as a "supercharged boiler". The burners are wide range, and depending upon the requirement you will need around 3, maybe four to support the entire operating range of the boiler to include overload (of 120% ). However the 3 can be increased in flow rate. There will be an economizer incorporated as well (increases boiler efficiency) as some P-type installations, there was no economizer, then also the draft loss would have to be taken into account with your exhaust gas turbine. Don't forget stack height....and one other thing, you better make the uptakes out of stainless, don't go skimping and half ***** it with half and half.

Forget the GTG's and go with the Emergency Diesel Generators. If you go with the Fairbanks Morse, please make sure the fuel racks are checked out, sometimes they don't reset right (and sometimes it is not the racks fault). You can go big at around 4K Each. If not Fairbanks Morse, call GM or CAT.

For the hull, how about going with prop pockets? And what about some space for launching an LCAC or two? You then can add to the mission ability of the ship. Why send an LHD closer than you have to when you have a better protected BBG that can move in a little further, and that is capable of launching and recovering them. It would be able to work in conjunction with the LHD as well. You would even be able to carry a rescue sub in there or even better support other operations. One other question, between the Barbette's and the bulkhead, how much room is there? You will be swinging some thick shafts and some big props. Important for the shafts and props. How far down will the Barbette's go? All the way? Just some questions, Rusty would be better at that though.

Later for now
SteaminDemon

[SteaminDemon]

Originally Posted by maximusslade

Who here beleives that the US will rule the waves forever??

Okay, I am going to cool it for now. I am certain I am going to get lambasted for this post but I have to say it. I wonder if there is anyone out there who agrees with me or if I made any sense to anyone.

Well, there are other counties that are trying to "rule the waves". It is possible for China to obtain a 600 ship fleet.

I am sorry, the 1,000 ship Navy is something I disagree with. We should not have to rely on anyone else's Navy but our own. If $h*! hits the fan who knows if those other ships will be around, let alone help out. The 1,000 ship Navy concept is a way to ignore our own shortcomings (both budget raping and in sheer numbers). Just like Sea Swap, another joke of a program that was lauded by the ones who created it and not a majority of the actual sailors involved.

I do agree with you Maximus and you have a very valid point. You have made sense to me, keep them 16" guns in your design. One other thing, have you thought about replacing the Phalanx CIWS with the Goalkeeper CIWS or combining them?

[maximusslade]

Steamin,

Many thanks for your engineering input. I have thought about A4W's but not having served aboard a carrier I am not certain as to how much space the use or how the engineering would be properly laid out. My experience is with a single reactor and two seperate, equal pressure turbines turning a single shaft. And yes, locked train.

I have asked myself as to using a reactor on a BB or BC. Even as efficient as GT engines are, I am still not fond of an oil based plant. I am certain that reactor plant controls i.e. CDMs can be engineered to withstand the shock of big guns firing or being hit by missles. I am certain that is something that should have been designed into the A4W.

Water plant?? One that works obviously. I can recall having a distilling unit that NEVER made water in all my time onboard, the evaporator worked like a champ though. I have never had any exposure to a RO plant, but I assume they are popular. So again, either evaporator or RO, whichever one works.

I must respectfully say "NO" to the idea of putting LCACs in the aft end of the BB. I feel it would only complicate the design of the ship and manpower requirements, and most importantly, where would I store marines and their tanks?? LOL

As to your boilers. I will most readily admit that I know almost nothing as to the modern operation of boilers. What you say makes very good sense as far as my thermodynamics goes, but again, as I said above, I am more familiar with nuclear plants, also I think that nuclear power would be more cost effective and the ship wouldnt have to depend on OPEC or Venezuela. But I wont discount a conventional plant completely, just for now I'll stick with the nuke plant.

I think deisels would be better too, especially using FM engines. They've been in use for what, 70 years?? When I toured USS Clamagore, I found that the engine onboard my Seawolf class submarine were almost identical to the FM1938 8 1/2ND I found on the Clamagore.

[SteaminDemon]

Originally Posted by maximusslade

Steamin,

Many thanks for your engineering input. I have thought about A4W's but not having served aboard a carrier I am not certain as to how much space the use or how the engineering would be properly laid out. My experience is with a single reactor and two seperate, equal pressure turbines turning a single shaft. And yes, locked train.

I have asked myself as to using a reactor on a BB or BC. Even as efficient as GT engines are, I am still not fond of an oil based plant. I am certain that reactor plant controls i.e. CDMs can be engineered to withstand the shock of big guns firing or being hit by missles. I am certain that is something that should have been designed into the A4W.

Water plant?? One that works obviously. I can recall having a distilling unit that NEVER made water in all my time onboard, the evaporator worked like a champ though. I have never had any exposure to a RO plant, but I assume they are popular. So again, either evaporator or RO, whichever one works.

I must respectfully say "NO" to the idea of putting LCACs in the aft end of the BB. I feel it would only complicate the design of the ship and manpower requirements, and most importantly, where would I store marines and their tanks?? LOL

As to your boilers. I will most readily admit that I know almost nothing as to the modern operation of boilers. What you say makes very good sense as far as my thermodynamics goes, but again, as I said above, I am more familiar with nuclear plants, also I think that nuclear power would be more cost effective and the ship wouldnt have to depend on OPEC or Venezuela. But I wont discount a conventional plant completely, just for now I'll stick with the nuke plant.

I think deisels would be better too, especially using FM engines. They've been in use for what, 70 years?? When I toured USS Clamagore, I found that the engine onboard my Seawolf class submarine were almost identical to the FM1938 8 1/2ND I found on the Clamagore.

Quick reply, you had me rolling on the OPEC and Venezuela Comment
Gas Turbines operate more efficiently in cooler weather. They do burn a hell of a lot more as well. The plant (if we used boilers) would be set up to steam in the dark in case of a complete loss of electrical power. During normal steaming, there would be less watch standers in the space, you can even make it to where the bridge can take throttle control. They had that on the CIMARRON AO's. Along with an automated steam plant as well. The modern plant would be able to operate in auto (and stick if needed). Steam plant is far more redundant than a GT plant.

One more thing, let you and I see where aerofoam metals winds up in the next few years. They are supposedly developing some pretty nifty metals.

As far as your evaps go, the one that never worked? Why in the hell wasn't it fixed? Damn Underwater Flangeheads! Let me guess, was it always flooded out?, salinity cells all out all the time? What the hell. Feed water control vlv bad? Leaky feedheater tubes (make new ones and roll and bead em)? Air Ejector's gone to crap? Orifice for aux exh inlet gone? Maybe no one replaced the rupture disk. Sucked when those would blow out. Usually the new guys, or "the ones that thought they knew what they were doing" that did it. Seal on the Distillate pump gone, shaft warped (you will go through many a mechanical seals that way....check shaft when replacing, saves headaches), you know what also is another overlooked issue, any fitting under a vacuum (same thing goes for loosing vacuum in main and aux condensers......but there are other steps to take prior to checking the fittings under vacuum, inlet, overboard hot to touch??!!.

Well, guess it wasn't a quick reply, but I must now run. Take care

[maximusslade]

As for that still, I KNOW it wasnt the salinity cells, LOL. We used those cells for cleaning for all our salinity cell monitored evolutions. Being an electrician, I wasnt close to its operation. I know though that at times they couldnt make it boil.

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by maximusslade

Ok...I am just going to come out with it. Why in hell does the Navy need some 5 or 6" round that shoots a hundred miles?? Sure as hell not to provide gunfire support for an amphibious landing or to provide gunfire support for the Army while they are miles and miles inland. Why do I say this?

Then you want to rewrite amphibious doctrine than has been evolving for the las 10-15 yrs? You say your navy, Haven't you seen the "From the sea"
pamphlets lying around the last couple of years?

Where are the targets that landing Marines or soldiers are going to need blown up?

I think the furtherest we ever did a assault/raid during a MEU(SOC) work-up was 350 miles from the ships. Would have been nice to have fire support planning for that. Aside from the company 60mm and a pair of 81s. The longest "From the beach" real world op I've ever done was In Kinshasa DRoC. We staged out of Brazzaville RoC, a little more than 250-300 miles from the beach. Now the Navy wouldn't take the ships too close to shore because of the oil rigs being a hazard to navigation.

If things had gotten real bad I sure would have been nice to have a little NavalGangba*g to fall back on.

What general sends a division into battle without its own artillery? So far as I know, there is no general so foolish, and those targets marines need blown up are on the beach.

What time in the amphibious planning does the arty go ashore? And we try not to do the head on beach assault anymore. With only 2.5MEBs worth of lift in the whole Navy it would not take long to burn through those Marines.
If your going to design a ship to provide support, it might be of use to read up on the relevant doctrine OMFTS, google it sometime. Been the official way we say we will do business since 1996.

If there is a target beyond the range of a gun, a TLAM or SLAMMER or whatever ship to ground missle that they wanna use, even aircraft with guided munitions.

Well thats about every target but I see you did bring up the fires triad.

So why not use aircraft to bust targets on the beach during an assault? My thought is if we are landing on some God forsaken beach that probably, just probably many of our air assets are being used up somewhere else perhaps maintaining air superiority or bombing a bridge or whatever may be required.

If there is an amphibious assault, everyone will be there. If you don't have the air support to provide CAS to the troops in your assault then you might want to do a little more battlespace shaping before you start landing troops.

On top of that tanks and artillery will be landed on the beach as soon as there is room for them when the assault force gets off the beach by that time, when they get out of range of navy guns, they can start using their own artillery to support maneuvers.

Lets say we do it old school. How long will that take? In a Hollywood assault (SpanishPhibEx, Bright Star, ect) Arty goes ashore at H+ 14. Bet you cannot guess how many times I've spent 2 or more days on ship because things get backed up? In 20+ years, I never saw the tubes hit the beach on time. How many tubes will that 2.5 MEB have to support maneuver? What about Reinforcing fires? General Support Fires? GS reinforcing Fires? Counterbattery Fire?

What I am saying is this, we dont need little shells that fly miles (except MAYBE in the case of special ops missions but I am way in over my head there so I am not even going to talk about that further) what is needed for amphipious assaults is ACCURATE and DEVISTATING firepower that is ready at a moment's notice,

And little bitty shells can do that Big shells leave big holes in the ground that can impede movement inland. Nothing like having that M-1 tank slide into a 16in gun crater. Doing what your enemy can only dream of, causing a mobility kill and knocking the tank out of the fight.

And once again, OMFTS. You will see that we do need shells that travel miles and miles

not dependant upon an aircraft that has limited fuel,

Just signed a contract for those new Air refuel planes. No worries

limited ammo, and whose base is miles and miles away.

We sort of perfected the plane stack in Desert Storm. We know how to keep armed planes in the area.

after you fire your loadout, how long will you have to pull out of action to reload in a port?

What about civilians? I want to see a report talking about how many civilians were living amongst the beach installations during the Pacific theater or along the Kuaiti coast while our ships were parked off their coast.

take a look at the night time sat view of the earth. 80% of the people live within 350 miles of a shoreline. And a better example might be how many no fire areas did we have in the european assaults because we wanted to minimize civilian casualties. Same with Kuwait and the British assault into Basra. Notice we tore apart their defenses with pinpoint accuracy vice big bombs going boom. John McCain can probibly tell you from personal experence. You don't recieve a warm reception from the people you just dropped bombs on. No matter how much you claim to be liberating them.

As for the second role of surface combatant? That is more clear cut to me. Design a ship that can cause more damage and take more damage than the other guy. Premise is the same as the old dreadnaught. Sink the other guy through superior fire power and survive through superior range and armor.

So you plan to design a whole fleet of DDs and CGs to act as escorts for this thing? Or do you see a modern version of a Great white Fleet
composed of nothing but armored battleships?

Cause I'll sink your vulnerable escorts that are providing ASW support among other things then send my subs after you Or just sink your escorts. Don't think the US public will see the victory in 3 sunken ships but one surviving because it was built to survive.

Battleships had their death warrant signed way back on July 20, 1921. Captain Osami Nagano was there to observe it. He got it. Some people still dont.

[maximusslade]

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.

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by maximusslade

Grape, you, despite everything that has been said about the ship, are the only one who is causing my head to ache.

I have that effect on some people. But I also have about 21yrs of fire support experience and think its funny when someone with no experience, or idea of how things are done, try to tell us what WE need.

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?

And yet you are wanting a ship to pound the beaches with ord. Now name the last time that a Battleships big guns were used in an amphibous assault. Heres a hint, you need to go back before Korea. They used CVs, CAs and DDs for that war. Even though the Iowas were in service and in the theater at the time Hummm, seems like way back in the 50s we decided we didn't need or want that "Big Hammer"

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!

But you asked how far away might we need NSFS. I just gave you a real world example.

You also understand that for certain missions bringing your own guns isn't an option.

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.

So explain why you feel it is a hole and why you think it needs to be filled

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.

But you don't use the biggest nail you can find nor the biggest hammer.

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.

OK But normally when you present an idea You back the need and your solution up with facts. Anything that cannot be justified in daylight usually isn't a good idea.

[RAL's_pal?]

Originally Posted by maximusslade

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.

Comment.... AFAIC, if you post, you take the good with the bad. You don't have to respond to any anti-BB people, but they have just as much right to comment on the threads.

[TopHatter]

Originally Posted by RAL's_pal?

Comment.... AFAIC, if you post, you take the good with the bad. You don't have to respond to any anti-BB people, but they have just as much right to comment on the threads.

maximusslade, RAL'sPal may be a bit salty, but he is correct.

For the most part we don't really "banish" commenting from any one particular thread simply be cause it's in disagreement with the thread-starter's opinion or similar.

[RAL's_pal?]

Originally Posted by TopHatter

maximusslade, RAL'sPal may be a bit salty, but he is correct.

For the most part we don't really "banish" commenting from any one particular thread simply be cause it's in disagreement with the thread-starter's opinion or similar.

I notice you've been staying away from the BB board as much as cRusty has.... What gives Grasshopper?

BTW, would it be crass to mention Warships1's Forum about "Designing a Battleship." Someone who likes to design BB's would get a ton of support from that board.
(Feel free to delete post if it goes against WAB guide lines to mention another Forum)