Author Topic: Nuclear deterrent debate (UK)  (Read 2843 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nico

  • Venom
    Parlez-vous Model Magician?
  • 212
Nuclear deterrent debate (UK)
Quote
Originally posted by Janos

Nuclear devices which can be used as weapons vary significantly. The easiest is to take an ordinary explosive, tie a pack of radioactive just around it, blow it in midair and pray. It will do practically no damage but can provoke hysteria or something ...[budabuda]... The scenario in where a mysterious rogue state sells nuclear material to TERRISTS is not impossible, but I have hard time figuring out just why would they do that. So far no plausible scenario exist. [/B]


That's funny, you make it sound like you actually know anything about it :p
SCREW CANON!

 

Offline Janos

  • A *really* weird sheep
  • 28
Nuclear deterrent debate (UK)
Quote
Originally posted by pyro-manic
Janos: Modern warships have practically no armour. They rely on active defence (i.e. shoot down/dodge the missiles before they hit) and advanced damage control. A modern warship would have a very hard time against anything built before 1950 in a head-to-head fight. An Exocet wouldn't even slow a battleship down. Modern warships are designed to fight modern battles, ie against other high-tech weapons and aircraft, rather than against brute force. They will be designed to counter guided missiles rather than shell fire, so they will have lots of point-defence turrets (Phalanx guns and the like), lots of ECM equipment, and will not have any armour plate, as a missile doesn't deliver anywhere near the energy of a 15-inch shell. Rather they'll have a few layers of "skin, to stop the missile penetrating right into the ship and gutting it, and will rely on agility to avoid taking a hit. Most modern warships will be destroyed (or at least critically damaged) if they take more than one or two direct hits - see the Sheffield and Antelope in the Falklands War - whereas an old-style warship could take a dreadful beating before sinking.


A carrier, for example, is insanely durable. It can take direct hits and shrug them off - well, of course there's structural damage, but sinking a carrier is not an easy task, even if we assume you get a direct line of fire and all that jazz. Some navy geeks who go ape**** every time we're talking about sinking US carriers tell that carriers could propably survive a near-vicinity hit of tactical nuke without sinking, but they wouldn't be battle capable after that, nor would the crew be very fine. :)

A modern missile packs a HUGE punch, and can engage targets well beyond the ranges of conventional cannons - the artillery is pretty much dead in present navies, except for CIWS and so on.
A current naval asset is not easy to sink, because they do have steel armour, but they're pretty easy to damage if you play your cards right. It's just not feasible to armour the entire top structure of a ship - radars, antennae, bridges, weaponry - because it could hamper their abilities and add weight. A ship can survive a missile hit or maybe not, but usually missile hits don't outright sink the ships. A torpedo hit (I know there's at least a plan, if not implementation, of CIWS system being able to shoot at underwater targets!), on the other hand, can and will.
lol wtf

 

Offline Janos

  • A *really* weird sheep
  • 28
Nuclear deterrent debate (UK)
Quote
Originally posted by Nico


That's funny, you make it sound like you actually know anything about it :p


thank you for your contribution
lol wtf

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
Nuclear deterrent debate (UK)
Quote
Originally posted by pyro-manic
Janos: Modern warships have practically no armour. They rely on active defence (i.e. shoot down/dodge the missiles before they hit) and advanced damage control. A modern warship would have a very hard time against anything built before 1950 in a head-to-head fight. An Exocet wouldn't even slow a battleship down. Modern warships are designed to fight modern battles, ie against other high-tech weapons and aircraft, rather than against brute force. They will be designed to counter guided missiles rather than shell fire, so they will have lots of point-defence turrets (Phalanx guns and the like), lots of ECM equipment, and will not have any armour plate, as a missile doesn't deliver anywhere near the energy of a 15-inch shell. Rather they'll have a few layers of "skin, to stop the missile penetrating right into the ship and gutting it, and will rely on agility to avoid taking a hit. Most modern warships will be destroyed (or at least critically damaged) if they take more than one or two direct hits - see the Sheffield and Antelope in the Falklands War - whereas an old-style warship could take a dreadful beating before sinking.


That only applies to warships, though.  If you take the various work done on armour plating other things, combine it with work done on bouyancy and physics and whatnot, I pretty much reckon they could easily build a nice big-iron warship.

 

Offline Nico

  • Venom
    Parlez-vous Model Magician?
  • 212
Nuclear deterrent debate (UK)
Quote
Originally posted by Janos


thank you for your contribution


you're welcome ^^
SCREW CANON!

 

Offline pyro-manic

  • FlambĂ©
  • 210
Nuclear deterrent debate (UK)
Oh, hell yes. But it's entirely impractical - nobody could justify the cost, and it'd never get used. Shame, really - battleships are extremely cool...
Any fool can pull a trigger...

 

Offline Rictor

  • Murdered by Brazilian Psychopath
  • 29
Nuclear deterrent debate (UK)
Quote
Originally posted by Janos


A carrier, for example, is insanely durable. It can take direct hits and shrug them off - well, of course there's structural damage, but sinking a carrier is not an easy task, even if we assume you get a direct line of fire and all that jazz. Some navy geeks who go ape**** every time we're talking about sinking US carriers tell that carriers could propably survive a near-vicinity hit of tactical nuke without sinking, but they wouldn't be battle capable after that, nor would the crew be very fine. :)

A modern missile packs a HUGE punch, and can engage targets well beyond the ranges of conventional cannons - the artillery is pretty much dead in present navies, except for CIWS and so on.
A current naval asset is not easy to sink, because they do have steel armour, but they're pretty easy to damage if you play your cards right. It's just not feasible to armour the entire top structure of a ship - radars, antennae, bridges, weaponry - because it could hamper their abilities and add weight. A ship can survive a missile hit or maybe not, but usually missile hits don't outright sink the ships. A torpedo hit (I know there's at least a plan, if not implementation, of CIWS system being able to shoot at underwater targets!), on the other hand, can and will.


You ever heard of a retired US general called Paul van Rippen? In 2002, he played the role of OPFOR commander in Millenium Chalenge 2, a US wargame against a fictional Middle-Eastern foe (called, quite coincidentally, Saddam Hussein. He went up against the might of the US warmachine with really primitive equipement, and kicked their asses. He used small fishing boats and Cessna-type planes, and managed to sink 2/3 of the US carrier battlegroup before anyone realized what the hell was going on. The US continually cheated, for example they "resurfaced" the sunk ships, as well as telling van Rippen what to do (turn on your AA so we can track you, don't put snipers in the mosque etc etc). In the end, he called it quits due to the unfair and predetermined outcome of the wargames, but he showed the whole world that the US's invunerability was just a myth, and that high tech equipement does not equal victory.

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Nuclear deterrent debate (UK)
Link?

 I'd really enjoy reading up on that :)
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Rictor

  • Murdered by Brazilian Psychopath
  • 29

 
Nuclear deterrent debate (UK)
Proof once again that strategy can beat brute force.

"Danger to your starfleet, not this battlestation."

Riiiiiiight.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2005, 12:46:28 pm by 2743 »

 

Offline vyper

  • 210
  • The Sexy Scotsman
Nuclear deterrent debate (UK)
"Cold Bringers".

That'll show we're serious about ****ing everyone else over if they mess with us. ;)
"But you live, you learn.  Unless you die.  Then you're ****ed." - aldo14