The most deranged military rant I've seen.

[Questor]

3: ... so stealth fighter-bombers are supposed to (instead of bombs) drop SOF personnel onto ground (assuming that they and all their gear survive) or into the water, in the example at the BBG-21 page to act as spotters/target designators for 16-inch guns, then the stealth fighter-bombers are to extract them plus whatever they may have had to pick up?

Maybe I'm coming late to the party, but wouldn't a few F-35's be able to carry more ordinance farther than a 16" gun can?

Does he really think that this is practical? What is the cost differential between a single F-35 and a helicopter, or even a rubber boat? My understanding was that the range of the 16" was about 25 miles.

Edit to add: F-35: $83M, SH-60: $36M, realizing that spotting for a weapon with a range of 25 miles can be done with a UAV: Priceless

[K. A. Pital]

ASMs like Sunburn or Shipwreck against pathetic refitted WWII monsters is not even funny.

I love how he proposed to use Battleships for coastal bombardment of Vietnam.

A battery of ASMs would sink them and that's it.

[Rogue 9]

He didn't let my comments show on YouTube, but he sent me a bunch of barely coherent PMs calling me a "dumbass geek."

[Edward Yee]

Maybe I'm coming late to the party, but wouldn't a few F-35's be able to carry more ordinance farther than a 16" gun can?

I have no idea. His sites seem to respect the F-22 and F-35 (though so far I've only seen the -B variant there) for their stealth aspects, but I suppose that somehow (unless he's actually right on this one point) he thinks that the damage from a 16-inch > the maximum payload of a F-35B within that distance.

Does he really think that this is practical? What is the cost differential between a single F-35 and a helicopter, or even a rubber boat? My understanding was that the range of the 16" was about 25 miles.

As Sidewinder explained, the idea was for for a VTOL-capable high speed vehicle for extraction (and possibly insertion, considering that he had the F-35B land in his concept photo). In fairness, a VTOL or STOVL fighter could fit this criteria; and so the F-35B's worst sin in this case may simply being so expensive. A cheaper alternate would be the very same AV-8B Harrier II that the Sidewinder says was the target of McDonnell Douglas' R&D. Too bad Sparks hates the Harrier, to say nothing of the U.S. Marine Corps.

Come to think of it, now I'm wondering how big these pods would have to be in order to have the needed accomodations for SOF to be safe inside during all aspects of their stay -- insertion (whether by actual drop or vehicle landing), extraction, high-speed flight, and whatever maneuvers a F-35B might have to do on its way back to the BBG-21.

Edit to add: F-35: $83M, SH-60: $36M, realizing that spotting for a weapon with a range of 25 miles can be done with a UAV: Priceless

[Questor]

Does he really think that this is practical? What is the cost differential between a single F-35 and a helicopter, or even a rubber boat? My understanding was that the range of the 16" was about 25 miles.

As Sidewinder explained, the idea was for for a VTOL-capable high speed vehicle for extraction (and possibly insertion, considering that he had the F-35B land in his concept photo). In fairness, a VTOL or STOVL fighter could fit this criteria; and so the F-35B's worst sin in this case may simply being so expensive. A cheaper alternate would be the very same AV-8B Harrier II that the Sidewinder says was the target of McDonnell Douglas' R&D. Too bad Sparks hates the Harrier, to say nothing of the U.S. Marine Corps.

Come to think of it, now I'm wondering how big these pods would have to be in order to have the needed accomodations for SOF to be safe inside during all aspects of their stay -- insertion (whether by actual drop or vehicle landing), extraction, high-speed flight, and whatever maneuvers a F-35B might have to do on its way back to the BBG-21.

I actually remember the article from PM, it was in the mid-nineties as I recall. I believe that the AV-8B would be limited to either one or two people. From the way the article described the program, there was no safety factor for the carried personnel, and they could not carry much gear, and the Harrier could not carry any weapons, except for the gun. This may have been due to the Harrier's limitations though. Carrying an entire squad would take at least six planes, with a cost of at least $498M for the planes alone.

Someone with more military experience than I will have to comment on the military need that this would address.

[JointStrikeFighter]

Any special forces aircraft pod would obviously be a very specialist piece of equipment, the kind of thing that would only ever get used once, kinda like that rocket VTOL Hercules they built to rescue the Iranian hostages.

[weemadando]

Any special forces aircraft pod would obviously be a very specialist piece of equipment, the kind of thing that would only ever get used once, kinda like that rocket VTOL Hercules they built to rescue the Iranian hostages.

this is sarcasm
Yeah, because if there's one thing that we learnt from the "Desert One" debacle it's that all military operations need to be that well thought out.

[MKSheppard]

I love how he proposed to use Battleships for coastal bombardment of Vietnam.

A battery of ASMs would sink them and that's it.

Actually, we did do that. Bombard Vietnam with the Battleships.

[Starglider]

I'm having trouble finding the "supercavitating submarine" guy on Google. Do you have a link?

He may mean the Deep Angel site, which was a fictional universe that was supposedly (but not actually) plausible. It's down now but you can see it on the Internet Archive

Back in reality there's a DARPA project to develop a manned submarine capable of 100 knots via supercav. I don't know the max size of the bubble, but apparently supercav is plausible for objects quite a lot bigger than a torpedo.

[Coyote]

The guy who made EMPIRE, a sci-fi universe of the "near future" which is sort of like a cross between, I dunno, Star Trek and Waterworld or something.

[Jim Raynor]

I'm not sure if this is correct, but I read somewhere that a 16 inch shell is equivalent to about bomb about 2,700 lbs. in weight. There's nine of them on an Iowa so within the range of the cannons a battlship does have more firepower than a few fighters.

But the point of aircraft is to allow a carrier to strike outside the range of enemy guns, torpedoes, and missiles, and the point of stealth is to make these aircraft extremely hard to detect and kill. In the case of the battle-carrier, the enemy KNOWS where the planes are coming from and landing at because their carrier is so big and so close. The battle-carrier is well within the range of land-based planes and missiles, not to mention at extreme risk to subs. Blow up the battle-carrier and the F-35s are fucked. It's a stupid dilution of roles.

And it's pointless to debate how durable battleships are. They're a lot more durable than modern warships, but it's not like a battleship is going to take an anti-ship missile (or several) and still want to stay in the area.

[Coyote]

There's a saying we have in the Army:
"A thousands rounds flying dowrange around a target is not firepower. ONE round flying downrange and striking the target --that's firepower."

Same thing in the Battleship debate-- 9, 18, 27, 36... huge shells flying downrange to blanket an enemy shore is not firepower.

One Tomahawk missile, launched from over the horizon that goes exactly to the target-- that's firepower.

I love the big old Battlewagons, but they are a thing of the nostalgaic past. If you try to make a "Battleship" with Tomahawk missiles, you have either a Guided-Missile Cruiser or an "Arsenal Ship", which is really a glorified Monitor. By cutting back on armor-- and increasing speed and range-- you can replace armor with electronic detection and interception that is better than chunky steel.

A big, slow battleship can absorb a torpedo hit-- but why should it, when you can instead have a smaller, faster, more nimble ship that costs less and cen send out a helicopter to whack the sub before it even gets a firing solution in the first place? For the cost of one battleship, which can be in one place at one time, you can have two or more smaller ships that are cheaper, just as survivable, and can be in more places at one time, and if one gets sunk, you're not out of the game.

Fleet prescence goes a long way.

[Starglider]

The guy who made EMPIRE, a sci-fi universe of the "near future" which is sort of like a cross between, I dunno, Star Trek and Waterworld or something.

Oh right, he just renamed it. I liked the old name better.

[MKSheppard]

There's a saying we have in the Army:
"A thousands rounds flying dowrange around a target is not firepower. ONE round flying downrange and striking the target --that's firepower."

And sometimes you just need to blow up the entire shoreline in a rolling barriage....

A big, slow battleship can absorb a torpedo hit-- but why should it, when you can instead have a smaller, faster, more nimble ship

Not this stupid canard again. The Iowa Class battleships were capable of 33 knot sustained speeds; it's why they lasted so long, they could act as carrier task force escorts in the immediate WWII period; and then could form the cores of Fast SAGs.

As for manouverability....well....

Here are some tactical diameters (tightest possible turning radius)

Iowa (BB 61) class 814 yards at 30 knots.
Gearing (DD 710) class - 725 yards at 30 knots..
Fletcher (DD 445) class as built - 950 yards at 30 knots.
Fletcher (DD 445) class with new large rudders when modernized for Korean service - 630 yards at 30 knots.

Yes, a 56,000 ton BB can turn tighter and manouver better than a 2,000 ton destroyer!

[Coyote]

Since we're talking about the effectiveness of Battleships in modern warfare, would it not be more applicable to compare them to things like the Ticonceroga Cruisers, the Arleigh-Burke Destroyers, and the Oliver Hazard Perry class Frigates?

Even that is gaming the system, since we're kinda considering the usefulness of Battleships for applications within the next decade, so things like the Sachsen and F100 frigates should be considered, as well as some of the next-gen CGs and DDs alreayd coming into service.

Also, we should consider whether we're looking for nothing but sheer pain-delivery power, or if we're making a serious investigation into things like cost vs. benefits, manpower and logistics requirements, waterway restrictions, and overall sustainability.

[Coyote]

Also, bear in mind armament:

Wiki: Iowa-class Battleship:

Armament
Main article: Armament of the Iowa class battleship
The Iowa-class battleships were among the most heavily armed ships the United States ever put to sea. The main battery of 16-inch (406 mm) guns could hit targets nearly 24 miles (39 km) away with a variety of artillery shells, from standard armor piercing rounds to tactical nuclear charges called "Katies" (from "kt" for kiloton). The secondary battery of 5-inch (127 mm) guns could hit targets nearly 9 miles (14 km) away with solid projectiles or proximity fused shells, and were equally adept in an anti-aircraft role and for damaging smaller ships.

Wiki: Arleigh-Burke class Destroyer:

The United States Navy has begun a modernization program for the Arleigh Burke class aimed at improving the gun systems on the ships in an effort to address congressional concerns over the loss of the U.S. Iowa-class battleships. Among other things this modernization includes is the extension of the range of the 5in guns on the Flight I Arleigh Burke-class destroyers (USS Arleigh Burke to USS Ross) with extended range guided munitions (ERGMs) that would enable the ships to fire projectiles about 40 nautical miles inland.

The modern Destroyer has more range than the old Battleship; I cannot be certain about the accuracy of the gun but the TLAMS will have even greater range and accuracy.

Rare do we need to level an entire beach. The only reason we might need to do that would be if we were getting ready for an amphibious assault on China, and if that was the case the Chinese anti-ship missiles would tear the shit out of any BB that got close enough to try. Missiles and aircraft are the better option-- unromantic and not as dramatic as a nine-16in.-gun broadside, I know, but war has changed. And modern politics won't let us level a seaside town out of sheer choler, no matter how much they may deserve it.

[K. A. Pital]

Wait. Is someone seriously suggesting reactivation of WWII battleships?

[Rogue 9]

Check this out.

Geek = STFU
Military professionals = call M113 Gavins

Geek = YOU

Mike

Re: Geek = STFU
If this is true, you should have no problem proving it. By all means, demonstrate your claim. Names of forty year old weapons systems are hardly state secrets; it should be trivial to demonstrate that they are called Gavins by citing any number of public documents if that is, in fact, the official designation. Do so, and I might believe you.

He has yet to answer.

Also regarding the submarine carrier idea:

Geek = Dumbass
You might want to actually FIND OUT about a thing before commenting on it, dumbass.

The Japanese submarine aircraft carriers had torpedoes and sank ships just like subs without a HANGER ON TOP.

Hmmmm.

Stick to being a dumbass geek if you cannot be a competent geek who does his homework.

Mike

I had claimed in the comment I left on his video (that he refused to allow to appear) that carrying an air wing would almost certainly cut into sonar capability and torpedo loadout; he apparently interpreted this to mean I said there would be no torpedoes. Anyway:

Re: Geek = Dumbass
Yes, and they sucked as submarines and sucked as carriers. Their "wing" was too small to do anything; the hangar was just wasted displacement, and the submarine class never actually accomplished anything notable. The Japanese submarine corps as a whole achieved approximately a 1:1 kill ratio throughout the entire war; these monstrosities certainly did nothing to bring up that average.

Think about it. How would two or three World War 2 era seaplanes actually pose a threat to U.S. fleets at the time, which were fielding hundreds of aircraft from their own carriers? The concept is ludicrous. As adapted to modern aircraft it's even more so, since a seaplane cannot be combat-capable by the standards of modern jet-propelled fighters, and jets require much more runway space than any submarine could provide.

Panama Canal
Look at how little it would take to knock out the Panama Canal.

You are a moron.

You confuse Japanese incompetent tactics to duel our fleet with the POTENTIAL of submarine aircraft carriers.

We will pay for dumbass mentalities like yours by having thousands die when our bloated stuporcarriers get sunk.

Mike

Our "bloated stuporcarriers" rule the oceans and have for decades. None have ever been sunk, or even come close to being successfully attacked, due to their ability to strike from beyond almost any of our enemies' capability to retaliate, to say nothing of their extensive escort. A carrier submarine doesn't even begin to compare; they could carry one or two aircraft at most, the great big box on top makes their hydrodynamics grossly suboptimal (drastically reducing both speed and stealth), and the inherent instability of a submarine hull on the surface (no keel) makes launching and recovering aircraft in anything but perfectly calm water the next thing to a physical impossibility. Their firepower doesn't even begin to measure up to a carrier air wing's, and their ability to run silent couldn't even begin to measure up to a modern submarine's. Mixing the roles is pointlessly detrimental to them both.

As for the Panama Canal, yes, it would take relatively little to destroy it, but using a carrier sub for it would be lunacy. The aircraft don't come from thin air and everybody knows it; even if they made it past whatever air defenses are present (and in a war scenario, they would be present), the submarine would be found and destroyed, and there goes the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on it and the further tens of millions spent on the fighters. A special ops ground assault could do the same thing with less risk and far less expense; planting a few bombs would be easier to accomplish, extraction would be much simpler, and if the worst happens, you lose fewer men and resources than you would by losing a submarine with all hands.

This guy is fun. I'm trying to work out the best timing for calling him a coward for denying my comments on his videos; if I'm reading him right, that'll send him into a frenzy.

[K. A. Pital]

How old is he?

[Rogue 9]

Physically? Certainly older than I am, probably by ten or fifteen years. Mentally? Apparently about twelve.

[Vehrec]

Wait. Is someone seriously suggesting reactivation of WWII battleships?

It happens pretty regularly that some fringe lunny gets this idea that we need more armor NOW. An rather than construct a new armor scheme to protect against JADAMs and other guided munitions, they just want to resurect the old designs. The worn designs. Not even building new hulls, he just assumes that they'll be ready to go!

[Coyote]

Check this out.

Geek = STFU
Military professionals = call M113 Gavins

Geek = YOU

Mike

Re: Geek = STFU
If this is true, you should have no problem proving it. By all means, demonstrate your claim....

Enjoy your new hobby-- there's entertainment potential to be had, for sure, but ultimately:

[PeZook]

Even if the I-400 suceeded in blowing up the Panama Canal, then...uh...Japan would've still lost the war? It would've gained the Japanese nothing? They neede to destroy the US Navy, not inconvenience it by making it sail around South America.

And does the US need to blow up the Canal? Does it need to spend as much money as building two brand new nuclear supercarriers for a one-shot gimmick?

The US can already blow up whatever it wants, using carrier aircraft and strategic bombers. If anything, it needs more supersonic and/or stealth strategic bombers, not stupid gimmicks.

[Rogue 9]

Enjoy your new hobby-- there's entertainment potential to be had, for sure, but ultimately:

[img]http://castletapestry.com/customtapestr ... te.jpg[img]

Oh, I know. I don't expect to change his mind. It would be ideal to lure him into a public venue so I could embarrass him, but I think he's too cagey for that.

[Ma Deuce]

A battery of ASMs would sink them and that's it.

Not if they were properly screened by AAW ships, but in the end that's irrelevant, because with a main gun range of only 24 miles they would have to close to well within the range of almost any modern medium to large caliber artillery near the target area, which while unable to sink her outright, would certainly be able to "mission kill" a BB, also given the Iowa's horrendous accuracy, it is unlikely she could return any effective counter-battery fire against reasonably hardened emplacements (such as SP guns or HART bunkers).

As for Sparky: My god, I never realized how far out he was. I already knew about his M113 obsession, though I didn't realize how bad even that it was (did he seriously call the M113 more combat effective than an M1A2?).