AnimeSuki Forums

SaintessHeart · 2012-01-13, 02:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Hat and Clogs

Gotta miss the old battleship days, turn the coastlines for 20 mile stretches into the surface of the moon and more heavy machine gun emplacements then you could poke a stick at.

You mean the Iowa class battlecruisers.

Let's go this way really, really fast! If there is something in our way, shoot it!

Ithekro · 2012-01-13, 02:25

Before they were modernized, sure. Or the South Dakota-class battleships before them. Shorter, not quite as fast, but just as armed and armored.

When the Iowa's were modernized in the 1980s, pretty much all of their AA guns were removed. What remained of what was once over 150 guns ranging from 49 x 20mm, and 80 x 40 mm to 20 x 5" and 9 x 16" guns...to just 21 guns (9 x 16" and 12 x 5") and 4 robotic 20mm gatling guns....well and 48 missiles (16 Harpoon and 32 Tomahawk)

The older form, if the AA guns could be fitted for anti-boat duty...would rip pretty much anything in range apart in the Straits.

SaintessHeart · 2012-01-13, 02:32

What I can remember is that they have plenty of 20mm oerlikon guns which could make short work of any gunboat that tries to get close. Any ASM launchers detected by drones or spec ops could instantly be demolished by those 16-inch monster guns.

Ithekro · 2012-01-13, 02:44

Of course the basic problem is that Iran is using small MISSILE boats. Something like 100+ of the things (Bavar class and others). Each with 4 (subsonic) Silkworm missiles, Exocet or Kowsar AShM (Chinese C-701). They out range all the guns on any battleship or cruiser. Or most of the guns that would be used on small targets at least.

SeijiSensei · 2012-01-13, 02:53

Comedian Stephen Colbert removed the one major obstacle standing in the way of his running for President of the United States tonight by turning over control of his "SuperPAC," Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow, to fellow comedian and business partner Jon Stewart. Colbert's attorney, a former Chair of the Federal Election Commission, pronounced this arrangement as complying with America's new laws governing SuperPACs.

Colbert has yet to declare his candidacy, but if he chooses to do so now, he won't be violating Federal election law.

See: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/us...president.html

The Huffington Post reports that, "Unfortunately for Colbert, a presidential run may not be a possibility this late in the game. Colbert missed the November 1 filing deadline to get his name on the GOP primary ballot in South Carolina, and according to the South Carolina Election Commission, there's no write-in space on the electronic and paper primary ballots."

Even if he can't make the ballot in SC, there are still quite a few states where the filing deadline has not yet passed.

Ithekro · 2012-01-13, 02:54

Well....He probably won't be running as a Republican.

Come to think of it, are there any Democrats running against Obama?

Vexx · 2012-01-13, 03:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Comedian Stephen Colbert removed the one major obstacle standing in the way of his running for President of the United States tonight by turning over control of his "SuperPAC," Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow, to fellow comedian and business partner Jon Stewart. Colbert's attorney, a former Chair of the Federal Election Commission, pronounced this arrangement as complying with America's new laws governing SuperPACs.

Colbert has yet to declare his candidacy, but if he chooses to do so now, he won't be violating Federal election law.

See: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/us...president.html

The Huffington Post reports that, "Unfortunately for Colbert, a presidential run may not be a possibility this late in the game. Colbert missed the November 1 filing deadline to get his name on the GOP primary ballot in South Carolina, and according to the South Carolina Election Commission, there's no write-in space on the electronic and paper primary ballots."

Even if he can't make the ballot in SC, there are still quite a few states where the filing deadline has not yet passed.

heh.. is this like the Pat Paulsen skewering runs for presidency (Smother's Brothers days)? Or is he serious.. cripes I'd vote for him and not because he's funny - he's probably smarter than most of the running field combined.

Ithekro · 2012-01-13, 03:09

I recall Pat Paulsen. And his "run" against Ronald Reagan (and about the only time he broke character because he couldn't not laugh at his own joke. He recovered fast, but he still laughed.)

"...an actor running for the White House. Who said he could act!?"

SaintessHeart · 2012-01-13, 03:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Of course the basic problem is that Iran is using small MISSILE boats. Something like 100+ of the things (Bavar class and others). Each with 4 (subsonic) Silkworm missiles, Exocet or Kowsar AShM (Chinese C-701). They out range all the guns on any battleship or cruiser. Or most of the guns that would be used on small targets at least.

Then maybe the USN should get the same stuff as a counter and turn it into something like the Battle of Latakia. Super missile wars FTW!

Ithekro · 2012-01-13, 03:44

Or maybe have the Japanese design some mecha based on American aircraft for the Carrier Air Wings (Itano Circus!). That would be amusing.

(The US did have Pegasus hydrofoils that were for that purpose...they were expensive to operate, and probably didn't work as well as advertised (scrapped 1993), And the current Cyclone-class Coastal Patrol ship are gunboats, not missile boats)

Jinto · 2012-01-13, 04:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Then maybe the USN should get the same stuff as a counter and turn it into something like the Battle of Latakia. Super missile wars FTW!

Goalkeeper, GDM-008 Millennium, Phalanx, AK-230/630 and other CIWS (RAM) ... if they are realy worth it, they should keep an attacking ship safe from subsonic weapons fire. However, usually you would not field the heavy destroyer classes against speedboats. Aircraft carriers provide excellent tactical capabilites against such threads as well as fast light corvettes and speedboats.

Ithekro · 2012-01-13, 04:31

The problem is still numbers. A few dozen boats with 4 missiles each against a Task Force of maybe a dozen warships (probably half a dozen). Their defense systems can only intercept so many missiles at a time.

Though I suppose it would be a good "test" to see just how good the systems actually are under full combat conditions. I'm not entirely sure how often they have been used to engage multiple targets in a fleet action...since it is kind of rare for the Navy to engage any other navy in a surface action anymore.

bladeofdarkness · 2012-01-13, 05:11

if the fleets capabilities are used properly (I.E aircraft support) there is no reason a single FAC would get within range to attack them.

Ithekro · 2012-01-13, 05:46

Well, it could be a repeat of Operation Preying Mantis.

The article just suggests that the Navy is worried about it. Though that could just be to get the Iranians to try something, get wiped out and give cause for other actions.

DonQuigleone · 2012-01-13, 06:26

All this discussion of boats is a bit foolish. Sea power is fairly dead, it's all about air power now. Those speed boats won't be able to do a damn thing against a Jet Fighter.

And while the speed boats are out harrassing your cruisers, you bomb his docks back to the stone age.

Dextro · 2012-01-13, 06:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

All this discussion of boats is a bit foolish. Sea power is fairly dead, it's all about air power now. Those speed boats won't be able to do a damn thing against a Jet Fighter.

And while the speed boats are out harrassing your cruisers, you bomb his docks back to the stone age.

Boats are pretty much important still, in particular aircraft carriers to allow that sweet air power to be highly mobile. And if you have aircraft carriers you need something to protect them which leads us to boats.

sneaker · 2012-01-13, 07:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dextro

Boats are pretty much important still, in particular aircraft carriers to allow that sweet air power to be highly mobile. And if you have aircraft carriers you need something to protect them which leads us to boats.

Beware of the U-Boats, though. They might sink your mighty carriers.

US Carrier "Enterprise" seen through the periscope of the German U 24 (now decommissioned 206 class) during a maneuver in which it broke the security perimeter of the carrier unnoticed, ready to fire torpedos.

Dextro · 2012-01-13, 07:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by sneaker

Beware of the U-Boats, though. They might sink your mighty carriers.

US Carrier "Enterprise" seen through the periscope of the German U 24 (now decommissioned 206 class) during a maneuver in which it broke the security perimeter of the carrier unnoticed, ready to fire torpedos.

Submarines were actually the first thing in my mind when I wrote that and they are technically boats as well

ganbaru · 2012-01-13, 07:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

if the fleets capabilities are used properly (I.E aircraft support) there is no reason a single FAC would get within range to attack them.

BUt if Iran start first by attacking the US fleet ? Nothing forbid anyone to be inside a 100km radius of a carrier, no ?

DonQuigleone · 2012-01-13, 07:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dextro

Boats are pretty much important still, in particular aircraft carriers to allow that sweet air power to be highly mobile. And if you have aircraft carriers you need something to protect them which leads us to boats.

Except that in the case of Iran the US can base aircraft in Afghanistan, Oman, the Emirates, Iraq...

However you are correct about Carriers, but the point is you don't need sea power at all if you've got land based air power, which is far superior to naval aircraft in size and capability.

They can take out any flotillas of speed boats with swarms of Drones, and not even use their naval force. It's all about Victory Through Air Power (skip to ~4:50).

2012-01-13, 02:25	Link #19022
Ithekro Gamilas Falls Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Republic of California Age: 46	Before they were modernized, sure. Or the South Dakota-class battleships before them. Shorter, not quite as fast, but just as armed and armored. When the Iowa's were modernized in the 1980s, pretty much all of their AA guns were removed. What remained of what was once over 150 guns ranging from 49 x 20mm, and 80 x 40 mm to 20 x 5" and 9 x 16" guns...to just 21 guns (9 x 16" and 12 x 5") and 4 robotic 20mm gatling guns....well and 48 missiles (16 Harpoon and 32 Tomahawk) The older form, if the AA guns could be fitted for anti-boat duty...would rip pretty much anything in range apart in the Straits. __________________ Last edited by Ithekro; 2012-01-13 at 02:44.

2012-01-13, 02:32	Link #19023
SaintessHeart NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~ Join Date: Nov 2007 Age: 35	What I can remember is that they have plenty of 20mm oerlikon guns which could make short work of any gunboat that tries to get close. Any ASM launchers detected by drones or spec ops could instantly be demolished by those 16-inch monster guns. __________________ When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus. Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

2012-01-13, 02:44	Link #19024
Ithekro Gamilas Falls Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Republic of California Age: 46	Of course the basic problem is that Iran is using small MISSILE boats. Something like 100+ of the things (Bavar class and others). Each with 4 (subsonic) Silkworm missiles, Exocet or Kowsar AShM (Chinese C-701). They out range all the guns on any battleship or cruiser. Or most of the guns that would be used on small targets at least. __________________

2012-01-13, 02:53	Link #19025
SeijiSensei AS Oji-kun Join Date: Nov 2006 Age: 74	Comedian Stephen Colbert removed the one major obstacle standing in the way of his running for President of the United States tonight by turning over control of his "SuperPAC," Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow, to fellow comedian and business partner Jon Stewart. Colbert's attorney, a former Chair of the Federal Election Commission, pronounced this arrangement as complying with America's new laws governing SuperPACs. Colbert has yet to declare his candidacy, but if he chooses to do so now, he won't be violating Federal election law. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/us...president.html The Huffington Post reports that, "Unfortunately for Colbert, a presidential run may not be a possibility this late in the game. Colbert missed the November 1 filing deadline to get his name on the GOP primary ballot in South Carolina, and according to the South Carolina Election Commission, there's no write-in space on the electronic and paper primary ballots." Even if he can't make the ballot in SC, there are still quite a few states where the filing deadline has not yet passed. __________________ Taking Anime Seriously - Politics by the Numbers - Sports by the Numbers - MAL List - Avatars - Images Last edited by SeijiSensei; 2012-01-13 at 03:04.

2012-01-13, 02:54	Link #19026
Ithekro Gamilas Falls Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Republic of California Age: 46	Well....He probably won't be running as a Republican. Come to think of it, are there any Democrats running against Obama? __________________

2012-01-13, 03:09	Link #19028
Ithekro Gamilas Falls Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Republic of California Age: 46	I recall Pat Paulsen. And his "run" against Ronald Reagan (and about the only time he broke character because he couldn't not laugh at his own joke. He recovered fast, but he still laughed.) "...an actor running for the White House. Who said he could act!?" __________________

2012-01-13, 03:44	Link #19030
Ithekro Gamilas Falls Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Republic of California Age: 46	Or maybe have the Japanese design some mecha based on American aircraft for the Carrier Air Wings (Itano Circus!). That would be amusing. (The US did have Pegasus hydrofoils that were for that purpose...they were expensive to operate, and probably didn't work as well as advertised (scrapped 1993), And the current Cyclone-class Coastal Patrol ship are gunboats, not missile boats) __________________ Last edited by Ithekro; 2012-01-13 at 04:09.

2012-01-13, 04:31	Link #19032
Ithekro Gamilas Falls Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Republic of California Age: 46	The problem is still numbers. A few dozen boats with 4 missiles each against a Task Force of maybe a dozen warships (probably half a dozen). Their defense systems can only intercept so many missiles at a time. Though I suppose it would be a good "test" to see just how good the systems actually are under full combat conditions. I'm not entirely sure how often they have been used to engage multiple targets in a fleet action...since it is kind of rare for the Navy to engage any other navy in a surface action anymore. __________________

2012-01-13, 05:11	Link #19033
bladeofdarkness Um-Shmum Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: at GNR, bringing you the truth, no matter how bad it hurts Age: 39	if the fleets capabilities are used properly (I.E aircraft support) there is no reason a single FAC would get within range to attack them. __________________

2012-01-13, 05:46	Link #19034
Ithekro Gamilas Falls Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Republic of California Age: 46	Well, it could be a repeat of Operation Preying Mantis. The article just suggests that the Navy is worried about it. Though that could just be to get the Iranians to try something, get wiped out and give cause for other actions. __________________

2012-01-13, 06:26	Link #19035
DonQuigleone Knight Errant Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Dublin, Ireland Age: 35	All this discussion of boats is a bit foolish. Sea power is fairly dead, it's all about air power now. Those speed boats won't be able to do a damn thing against a Jet Fighter. And while the speed boats are out harrassing your cruisers, you bomb his docks back to the stone age.