Big ships are cool and all but there's really no point to them when they can all be destroyed with one missile
[QUOTE=Neo Kabuto;34644194]Even though I know what it means, the immature part of me giggles at the designation "Littoral Combat Ship".
I don't think there's really much to wonder about. It seems pretty obvious why we don't have one anymore.[/QUOTE]
The "Littoral Zone" is the term given to costal/shoreline areas of the ocean. As Wikipedia puts it:
[quote]The littoral zone is that part of a sea, lake or river that is close to the shore. In coastal environments the littoral zone extends from the high water mark, which is rarely inundated, to shoreline areas that are permanently submerged. It always includes this intertidal zone and is often used to mean the same as the intertidal zone. However, the meaning of "littoral zone" can extend well beyond the intertidal zone.[/quote]
Basically, it's just a cool sounding name for a ship that can operate in shallow coastal environments.
[QUOTE=Jund;34644309]Big ships are cool and all but there's really no point to them when they can all be destroyed with one missile[/QUOTE]
Yeah and soldiers are useless too, they can be killed with one bullet to the head
And don't get me started on jets, they can be taken down with a single rocket; child's play!
It's really only a 2 step process to defeat the whole US Army
1. Launch a missile at ship/tank/jet/whatever
2. Repeat
Easy as pie, I don't know why no one has done it when it's so easy
[QUOTE=smurfy;34644458]Yeah and soldiers are useless too, they can be killed with one bullet to the head
And don't get me started on jets, they can be taken down with a single rocket; child's play!
It's really only a 2 step process to defeat the whole US Army
1. Launch a missile at ship/tank/jet/whatever
2. Repeat
Easy as pie, I don't know why no one has done it when it's so easy[/QUOTE]
They should promote you to General.
[QUOTE=MightyMax;34642936]Oh man lets build another really expensive ship. That's exactly what we need. It's not like our navy isn't already extremely powerful or we are in an economic down-time or anything. Nah, we need MOAR SHIPZ.[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure that unless you have outsourced your ship building its [B]really[/B] good for economies in the surrounding areas.
[QUOTE=smurfy;34644458]Yeah and soldiers are useless too, they can be killed with one bullet to the head
And don't get me started on jets, they can be taken down with a single rocket; child's play!
It's really only a 2 step process to defeat the whole US Army
1. Launch a missile at ship/tank/jet/whatever
2. Repeat
Easy as pie, I don't know why no one has done it when it's so easy[/QUOTE]
It's like war is a chessboard and you are big blue
[QUOTE=Jsm;34644517]Pretty sure that unless you have outsourced your ship building its [B]really[/B] good for economies in the surrounding areas.[/QUOTE]
Case and point: Newport News, Virginia.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/Jsoey.jpg[/img]
Their entire economy is based around building stuff for the Navy, pretty much. Other jobs include transporting stuff that builds stuff for the Navy, and making stuff used to make stuff for the Navy. That one little corner employs well over 20,000 people. Probably a lot more.
Hell, it doesn't even have to be military ships. Ships take a long time to build and need an army of skilled workers.
[QUOTE=smurfy;34644458]Yeah and soldiers are useless too, they can be killed with one bullet to the head
And don't get me started on jets, they can be taken down with a single rocket; child's play!
It's really only a 2 step process to defeat the whole US Army
1. Launch a missile at ship/tank/jet/whatever
2. Repeat
Easy as pie, I don't know why no one has done it when it's so easy[/QUOTE]
Wasn't this the soviet plan?
Like their entire navy revolved around launching ridiculous amounts of guided missiles at aircraft, land targets, and other ships. They even tried to make missiles that worked underwater to hit subs.
I mean, I know you are kidding, but I think that was seriously their plan. Everything revolved around missiles.
[editline]10th February 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=OvB;34644686]Case and point: Newport News, Virginia.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/Jsoey.jpg[/img]
Their entire economy is based around building stuff for the Navy, pretty much. Other jobs include transporting stuff that builds stuff for the Navy, and making stuff used to make stuff for the Navy. That one little corner employs well over 20,000 people. Probably a lot more.
Hell, it doesn't even have to be military ships. Ships take a long time to build and need an army of skilled workers.[/QUOTE]
We should build vessels that harvest underwater minerals.
We have tons of warships, lets make ships that harvest valuable resources.
Not that our government could legally run a business like that.
*sigh* capitalism is so boring.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34644721]
We should build vessels that harvest underwater minerals.
We have tons of warships, lets make ships that harvest valuable resources.
Not that our government could legally run a business like that.
*sigh* capitalism is so boring.[/QUOTE]
We got robotic tracked vehicles that drive along the floor and mine rare metals. Though deep sea mining is still in its infancy and the environmental impact is not quite fully known, though it would stir up a ton of sediments.
One of those LCS's came through Pensacola not too long ago, and the newest one which is undergoing sea trials is stationed here right now.
[QUOTE=OvB;34644858]We got robotic tracked vehicles that drive along the floor and mine rare metals. Though deep sea mining is still in its infancy and the environmental impact is not quite fully known, though it would stir up a ton of sediments.[/QUOTE]
I was actually referring more to giant trawlers that pull uranium out of seawater. Pure underwater mining is nowhere near cost efficient, nor would the facilities producing surface vessels be as useful. :D
Granted that tech isn't even out of the womb yet and we also aren't really sure of the environmental impact either, so I guess that point is moot.
Surely there has to be something more productive these facilities could be doing. Sea turbines for producing power or something.
[QUOTE=Hidole555;34643056]Our navy is so huge already.
It's as if we're preparing to fight the entire world.
[B]At the same time.[/B][/QUOTE]
Getting ready for an Asian conflict i guess.
Yes, this is Gabrielle Newell.
[QUOTE=smurfy;34644458]Yeah and soldiers are useless too, they can be killed with one bullet to the head
And don't get me started on jets, they can be taken down with a single rocket; child's play!
It's really only a 2 step process to defeat the whole US Army
1. Launch a missile at ship/tank/jet/whatever
2. Repeat
Easy as pie, I don't know why no one has done it when it's so easy[/QUOTE]
There's nothing a battleship can do that a carrier can't do a hundred times better
Until there are better alternatives to foot soldiers and tanks in terms of cost efficiency they aren't going anywhere
[QUOTE=Jund;34649054]There's nothing a battleship can do that a carrier can't do a hundred times better
Until there are better alternatives to foot soldiers and tanks in terms of cost efficiency they aren't going anywhere[/QUOTE]
If that was true, that means that aircraft carriers dont need escorts.
[QUOTE=Jund;34649054]There's nothing a battleship can do that a carrier can't do a hundred times better
Until there are better alternatives to foot soldiers and tanks in terms of cost efficiency they aren't going anywhere[/QUOTE]
Don't forget to mention that battleships are slow and totally impractical for modern combat.
[QUOTE=CubeManv2;34643980]Why do todays ships look like low-poly models from old games
I miss thiss
[img]http://pixdaus.com/pics/1324909939bkR9sf4.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
I got to visit a museum of one of those.
The lower decks are like a labyrinth of hallways and rooms.
J[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;34651080]Don't forget to mention that battleships are slow and totally impractical for modern combat.[/QUOTE]
If the railgun testing works, battleships will be faster, far more accurate, and can engage targets at extremely long distances.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;34650731]If that was true, that means that aircraft carriers dont need escorts.[/QUOTE]
Where did I claim that carriers don't need escorts
So far the only thing I have stated is that battleships have no place in naval combat
I don't know why people are so keen on putting words into my mouth
[QUOTE=Hidole555;34643056]Our navy is so huge already.
It's as if we're preparing to fight the entire world.
[B]At the same time.[/B][/QUOTE]
We are. Lock and load.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;34651291]J
If the railgun testing works, battleships will be faster, far more accurate, and can engage targets at extremely long distances.[/QUOTE]
No they won't because at the end of the gulf war the navy phased out battleships. They're either scrapped, a museum or waiting to be demolished if they haven't already. We have no battleships in the fleet.
[QUOTE=OvB;34644858]We got robotic tracked vehicles that drive along the floor and mine rare metals. Though deep sea mining is still in its infancy and the environmental impact is not quite fully known, though it would stir up a ton of sediments.[/QUOTE]
Deep sea mining is a lucrative business, Mr. OvB.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;34651542]No they won't because at the end of the gulf war the navy phased out battleships. They're either scrapped, a museum or waiting to be demolished if they haven't already. We have no battleships in the fleet.[/QUOTE]
Because Cruisers are the new battleships you ninny.
Battleships were phased out because the whole point of them is no longer needed. Cruisers can do the same job.
[QUOTE=Swilly;34653862]Because Cruisers are the new battleships you ninny.
Battleships were phased out because the whole point of them is no longer needed. Cruisers can do the same job.[/QUOTE]
Are you trying to argue with me? I'm in the Navy for goodness sake. Cruisers are not new Battleships they have a different job to do than them which is why they're CG not BB. I'm thinking some people think battleship means any war fighting ship, that is not the case. Battleships were their own type of ship designated BB. Maybe you're trying to compare the battleship to a destroyer?
Yeah I don't understand the sudden hostility, he didn't say anything provocative...
AFAIK cruisers have always been support ships also capable of independent action, while battleships were capital surface combatants from WW1 to early WW2
Meehr I`m not to keen on the US way of naming ships after various people. Not because I don`t like the people, I just don`t think it sounds that great. Much prefer the Royal Navy names like... Dauntless and Vengence.
Then again there's also HMS Duncan named after someone and that sounds arse.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;34655350]I'm thinking some people think battleship means any war fighting ship, that is not the case. Battleships were their own type of ship designated BB. Maybe you're trying to compare the battleship to a destroyer?[/QUOTE]
They may be just confusing battleships with warships in general
Heh, a ship called Gabe.
Hehe, Gabrielle Gifford is full of seamen.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.