[Zyx]

I am fairly certain that Brio is missing.

[MB.]

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?

[ingliz]

Hybrid AIP deisel electric attack submarines, 35 man crew, anti ship or nuclear tipped cruise missiles, heavy torpedoes, 8,000 mile range, 33 days endurance submerged without surfacing, Israel have bought them, virtually undetectable.

The US borrowed a Swedish type for evaluation and lost it for a month.

[MB.]

Waste of money.

[ingliz]

The whole point of a navy is to sink the enemy without them sinking you.

Your obsolete heavy cruiser wouldn't last 5 minutes, 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.

[MB.]

The whole point of a navy is to sink the enemy without them sinking you.

Debatable. Though it does help.

heavy cruiser

Battleship. Partially modernized (though decommissioned).

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.

The USS Iowa is a formidable warship, I don't think you really have any idea what you're talking about.

[Oxymoron]

I prefer Subs actually, the Battle ship does not serve our interests at all. I would like to get some

[Thunderhawk]

I oppose the purchase of the battleship. I rather we get attack subs. Though I oppose attack subs too. We should have a strong airforce, and thats about it. We are an island nation after all. If we cannot contest the skies from an agressor then we have little in the way of keeping our island secure - even with attack subs.

[Cartertonian]

We should have a strong airforce

Hurrah!

[Figlio di Moros]

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.

There's a reason we haven't used battleships for the better part of a decade; 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.

Ingliz is absolutely right, the defense of our nation relies on a practicle solution, and fast attacks do quite well at that. I'd rather we go for designing a hydrogen-powered sub instead of building European ones, though, but it's not solely my decision. Air support is important as well, and I'd agree with thunderhawk on building up our naval airforce as long as we work towards building carriers some time in the future, after the improvement of our economy.

[Dave]

There's a reason we haven't used battleships for the better part of a decade

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.

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.

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.

That said this idea of trying to buy a battleship from the USA is silly.

[Figlio di Moros]

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.

1) Show me where the Marines have requested a battleship
2) Carriers and subs still have strategic advantages, considering their long-range capabilities and the sub's particularly silent nature.

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.

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. As I said before, hit the battleship in the middle and it'll break in two, armor or not.

[Dave]

1) Show me where the Marines have requested a battleship

http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Military- ... nting.html

2) Carriers and subs still have strategic advantages, considering their long-range capabilities and the sub's particularly silent nature.

Duh. Battleships are largely worthless for naval warfare today. Their use is pretty much as floating superheavy artillery.

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.

Carriers have defense systems

Which are inadequate against the latest generation of antiship missiles.

and travel in battle groups,

Which do not eliminate the basic deficiency in armor although anti-missile capability is improved.

as well as the fact they release airplanes who fight the battle further away

Not helping that the USN eliminated long-range interceptors and dedicated tankers from its air wings.

... needless to say, a Carrier doesn't need heavy armor all that badly.

It certainly does if you want it to be able to take hits and remain on station.

As I said before, hit the battleship in the middle and it'll break in two, armor or not.

How? It's not like the armor belt is mysteriously absent there, and on the deck level the middle of the ship is dominated by a heavily armored forecastle.

[Potemkin]

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.

This is what the War Nerd has to say.

[Dave]

I think you really need to find more serious commentators on defense issues than the War Nerd, even if is he often right and always enjoyable to read.

[Figlio di Moros]

This is what the War Nerd has to say.

When we called them targets back in Groton, I didn't realize it was equally true for the surface fleet...


None-the-less, carriers still have practicle application... though it's certainly true now more than ever, they need a better design.

[Dave]

None-the-less, carriers still have practicle application... though it's certainly true now more than ever, they need a better design.

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 di Moros]

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).

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...

[Dave]

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...

America-talk. We are too small to have any power projection requirements, so land-based aircraft will be more than adequate for our aerial needs. Tanker aircraft should be procured since the extend mission ranges and increase sortie rates, however.

[Thunderhawk]

Pofo does require a surface fleet to enforce its maritime border and expell those violating our waters (over fishing), oil/gas, etc.. Simple frigates are enough though, IMO. Beyond that, its just posturing.