Dave is willing to broker a licensing agreement with the German manufacturers of our diesel electric hybrids and build them at his shipyards.
What kind of ships are these? What are the specifications?
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Dave is willing to broker a licensing agreement with the German manufacturers of our diesel electric hybrids and build them at his shipyards.
The whole point of a navy is to sink the enemy without them sinking you.
heavy cruiser
all they are good for is making a show and shelling mud and straw villages in some ex colonial shithole with no-one firing back.
Thunderhawk wrote:We should have a strong airforce
MB. wrote:Battleship. Partially modernized (though decommissioned).
The USS Iowa is a formidable warship, I don't think you really have any idea what you're talking about.
Figlio de gli moros wrote:There's a reason we haven't used battleships for the better part of a decade
Figlio de gli moros wrote: you hit that thing in the middle and it'll crack in half and be under water before a single sailor can get off it.
Dave wrote:Idiotic carrier admirals and missile fetishists who don't want an excuse to not get more fighter-bombers or deliver more $750k+ cruise missiles. The USS Iowa can deliver more ordnance in two hours than an entire carrier wing can in an entire day. The US Marines have repeatedly requested that a battleship be brought back into service or that one be transferred to them.
Dave wrote:The Iowa class would be largely invulnerable to modern antiship missiles and can remain on station even with serious battle damage. Carriers meanwhile are largely unarmored.
Figlio de gli moros wrote:1) Show me where the Marines have requested a battleship
Figlio de gli moros wrote:2) Carriers and subs still have strategic advantages, considering their long-range capabilities and the sub's particularly silent nature.
Dave wrote:The Iowa class would be largely invulnerable to modern antiship missiles and can remain on station even with serious battle damage. Carriers meanwhile are largely unarmored.
Figlio de gli moros wrote:Carriers have defense systems
Figlio de gli moros wrote: and travel in battle groups,
Figlio de gli moros wrote: as well as the fact they release airplanes who fight the battle further away
Figlio de gli moros wrote:... needless to say, a Carrier doesn't need heavy armor all that badly.
Figlio de gli moros wrote: As I said before, hit the battleship in the middle and it'll break in two, armor or not.
Carriers have defense systems and travel in battle groups, as well as the fact they release airplanes who fight the battle further away... needless to say, a Carrier doesn't need heavy armor all that badly.
Potemkin wrote:This is what the War Nerd has to say.
Figlio de gli moros wrote:None-the-less, carriers still have practicle application... though it's certainly true now more than ever, they need a better design.
Dave wrote:I would be in favor of smaller, faster (use low-drag hull designs) carriers that are heavily armored and have far more CIWS (Russian carriers do feature many more CIWS).
Figlio de gli moros wrote:Are we still discussing pofo, or has this turned into America-talk? Needless to say, I firmly believe we have to arm ourselves with the best...
Current Jewish population estimates in Mexico com[…]
Ukraine stands with Syrian rebels against Moscow- […]