Article

2009-01-17 Science & Technology

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2009-01-17 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11130 views ] Top

#1 Shade of GI JOE's USS AMERICA Carrier toy > IIRC, twas a throughdeck CV which also had Missle Firing ports built into its broadsides???

IIRC, it sank COBRA'S commandeered, BAT-crewed USS MONTANA thanx to SHIPWRECK.

ARSENAL/FIRE SHIP???

Posted by JosephMendiola 2009-01-17 01:24|| 2009-01-17 01:24|| Front Page Top

#2 We can turn it up to 11.

Posted by gorb 2009-01-17 04:16|| 2009-01-17 04:16|| Front Page Top

#3 Combine a railgun with GPS-guided gliding projectile and you have a range of 100s of Ks.

Then there is swarm technology with initial wave projectiles searching for targets relayed to later launched projectiles.

Posted by phil_b 2009-01-17 07:08|| 2009-01-17 07:08|| Front Page Top

#4 Can one of the experts here explain to me why we aren't designing the future carrier for vertical take-off and landing, and thereby reducing the size of the deck/ship?

Posted by Cynicism Inc 2009-01-17 09:01|| 2009-01-17 09:01|| Front Page Top

#5 Because the US already has 12 of them. They are called amphibious assault ships. The next gen LHAs won't even have boat docks.

Posted by ed 2009-01-17 13:58|| 2009-01-17 13:58|| Front Page Top

#6 Because VTOL planes make crummy fighters (low performance) and piss poor bombers (very limited pay load). Did I mention that for most of its carreer the Harrier had no radar and thus was restricted to short range IR missiles? (Another consequence of teh limited payload of a VTOL plane).

Posted by JFM">JFM 2009-01-17 14:03|| 2009-01-17 14:03|| Front Page Top

#7 They should name it Montana.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2009-01-17 14:08|| 2009-01-17 14:08|| Front Page Top

#8 I have to add that I was not sayinfg that VTOL planes are useless, only that you can't go to battle with VTOL planes only.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2009-01-17 16:51|| 2009-01-17 16:51|| Front Page Top

#9 Can one of the experts here explain to me why we aren't designing the future carrier for vertical take-off and landing, and thereby reducing the size of the deck/ship?

Because we want to win.

Posted by .5MT 2009-01-17 19:58|| www.cybernations.net]">[www.cybernations.net] 2009-01-17 19:58|| Front Page Top

#10 And no... it should be named Yorktown.

Posted by .5MT 2009-01-17 20:00|| www.cybernations.net]">[www.cybernations.net] 2009-01-17 20:00|| Front Page Top

23:55 Slonter Lumumba2615
23:51 Steven
23:18 Frank G
23:07 Frank G
23:05 Age Of Pericles
23:04 gorb
22:58 SteveS
22:51 Leroidavid
22:34 Frank G
22:28 Leroidavid
22:18 Frank G
22:17 Nimble Spemble
22:15 Nimble Spemble
22:11 Frank G
22:09 Nimble Spemble
22:06 ed
22:02 Leroidavid
21:56 ed
21:55 Percy Shamp4390
21:38 lotp
21:29 Mike N.
21:28 DMFD
21:26 KBK
21:23 lotp