|
Why in the world no?
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 00:40 |
|
|
xthetenth posted:Why in the world no? I was going to originally make a big effort post on why, on every single possible conceivable level, reactivating an Iowa as anything other than a museum ship (which they currently are) is completely bugfuck retarded, but I decided to just give you a hard no for now. Maybe later when I have time. edit: like maaaaaayyyyybe if we bought one cheap of the USN before they mothballed them after the collapse of the Soviet Union, it might be technically serviceable in some very limited manner, but even then there are so many reasons to just make an entire new goddamned bote instead that it is mind boggling. Groggy nard fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
Yooper posted:The US Navy continued on the current trajectory as we are on today. High-End anti-missile systems are now so effective that high velocity railgun shells are now seen as the only way to truly get through the shield of iron. What year is this? 2024? There's no guarantee that the railgun program will ever see the light of day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
Groggy nard posted:I was going to originally make a big effort post on why, on every single possible conceivable level, reactivating an Iowa as anything other than a museum ship (which they currently are) is completely bugfuck retarded, but I decided to just give you a hard no for now. Maybe later when I have time. I know full well it's absolutely farcical. That's not at all the question we should be asking. The question we should be asking is could we deliver the service for less than we could get paid for it? Practical is a distant second to profitable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:I know full well it's absolutely farcical. That's not at all the question we should be asking. The question we should be asking is could we deliver the service for less than we could get paid for it? Practical is a distant second to profitable. Considering how many people would die just trying to make the old boilers work? And the cost of fixing/replacing them alone being enough to warrant "just buy a new goddamned bote" because you would have to tear so much of the thing apart just to fix them? No.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Why in the world no? I wondered the same thing. Yooper: Thank you for the speedy response. When we get Jack back can we see about having him put feelers out in the high end market, just to get a sense of what mighe be out there on the open/black market and rough pricetags?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:No. We're a PMC. What we need to do is Iowa-as-a-Service™. Reduce naval officers to a gig economy
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
We don't need the boilers, or the rest of the ship. We just need the guns. Flip the ship over and they should fall right out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:What year is this? 2024? Last I heard they were going for it with planned sea trials some time soonish. Also a big thing the article fails to mention is that railgun rounds are dirt loving cheap compared to missiles which helps offset costs by a bunch. Edit: Its about $25,000 per rail gun round. Compared to the 1.2 million price tag per tomahawk. That means for one tomahawk I can launch 48 rounds your way. Telsa Cola fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Koorisch posted:So you plane-goons, any ideas how much better the new JAS 39E/F would be if we had them right now instead of the older C's? AESA radar, an insane IRST and a bit more range would be the big differences. It'd still be the smallest of the eurocanards, with all the limitations that entails. EDIT: Earlier I said you couldn't upgrade a C/D to an E/F. Apparently I am wrong? http://aviationweek.com/awin/new-gripen-aims-low-cost-high-capability Quinntan fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:What year is this? 2024? 2023 I spent a bit of time with PS and Krita today. The speckle effect looked cooler before I exported it. Oh well. Good first try. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:Last I heard they were going for it with planned sea trials some time soonish. Also a big thing the article fails to mention is that railgun rounds are dirt loving cheap compared to missiles which helps offset costs by a bunch. The Tomahawk also weighs 1300kg, 450kg of which is explosive, and has a range of 1,300 km. Those 48 rounds weigh around 10kg each according to Wikipedia, and if the price tag is closer to the $50K upper level in the Wiki then you're only shooting 24 rounds with a maximum range of less than 200km.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
Yooper posted:2023 That looks promising, nice job!
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:The Tomahawk also weighs 1300kg, 450kg of which is explosive, and has a range of 1,300 km. Those 48 rounds weigh around 10kg each according to Wikipedia, and if the price tag is closer to the $50K upper level in the Wiki then you're only shooting 24 rounds with a maximum range of less than 200km. I think the logistical niceties and cheap price range are going to overcome that, lots of ASM missiles have a range of ~200km so its not like its a crippling short range and Tomahawks are a bitch to reload from what I hear. Though I will be honest and I have no idea about what damage the kinetic impact will do. This is all moot point however since the railguns are being installed mainly for missile defense. Now if the Navy got its hands on an up to date version of the plasma railgun that was made in the 90's that would be nice. Telsa Cola fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
Cathode and I are both apparently eco-warriors, can we paint an avenging whale on our Phantom or something? Also, nice to hear that railgun duels are the way of the future. Why are we talking about buying/reactivating Iowas when the obvious path is to build the world's first railgun dreadnaught? Crazycryodude fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:when the obvious path is to build the world's first submersible, aircraft-launching, land-capable railgun dreadnaught? ftfy
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:You'd think so, but apparently our Frogfoots have 360 degree laser targeting? DCS lied to me  (or does Command get this wrong instead?)Yooper posted:The US Navy continued on the current trajectory as we are on today. High-End anti-missile systems are now so effective that high velocity railgun shells are now seen as the only way to truly get through the shield of iron. Did the US ever buy more Raptors or are they still stuck with their original order?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Yooper posted:2023 Hello me! This must be from before I got the chance to paint it up with Area 88 unicorns and anime pretty boys 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
power crystals posted:DCS lied to me That's a good question! We'll just have to wait and see eh?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
power crystals posted:DCS lied to me Command gets it wrong. US is stuck with the Raptors it's got. All the subcontractors have moved on, even though the production jigs exist. edit: or perhaps not
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
Groggy nard posted:Considering how many people would die just trying to make the old boilers work? And the cost of fixing/replacing them alone being enough to warrant "just buy a new goddamned bote" because you would have to tear so much of the thing apart just to fix them? So what you're saying is that we need a nuclear powered destroyer instead? E: Ok, so the US navy never had nuclear destroyers, but they did have nuclear cruisers like the USS California (CGN-36). We could totally get a guided missile destroyer and then slap a reactor in it. And some big rear end cannons, because they are sweet AF. I would be willing to accept rail guns as replacements for the cannons if that's a sticking point. Let's extrapolate a bit here. There are loads of Arleigh Burke destroyers, they're like 1.8 billion retail, we could probably get a used one for less. Then we just need a reactor to power it. At the risk of it being overkill (or needing a load of electricity to power fancy radar/ewar equipment and railguns, a single A4W or A1B would do it. In general the reactors are about half the cost of a carrier, and the Nimitz class had two A4Ws on them. Since each carrier was ~4.5 billion dollars, we can assume the reactors were about 2.25 billion, and half of that is 1.125 billion dollars at retail. We'd need to get one of these, and probably fuel for it, but fuel is (comparatively) cheap. So for, lets say, 1.5(ship) + 1(reactor) + 0.25(fuel) + 0.25(refit) = 3 billion dollars we could have the world's only nuclear powered Arleigh Burke class destroyer, with plenty of power to spare for going fast and extra fancy toys that need lots of electricity. If we managed to get our hands on an A1B somehow, that would give us even more power, but they are probably like twice the cost of the A4W. Alternatively we could get a bigger ship because we have the extra power to deal with the increased mass. Olothreutes fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Cathode and I are both apparently eco-warriors, can we paint an avenging whale on our Phantom or something? Yes, can we depict an angry baleen whale devouring the whole world on our Phantom? Or would HUMAN resources find that threatening?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
Groggy nard posted:Considering how many people would die just trying to make the old boilers work? And the cost of fixing/replacing them alone being enough to warrant "just buy a new goddamned bote" because you would have to tear so much of the thing apart just to fix them? But on the other hand, it's a loving battleship.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:AESA radar, an insane IRST and a bit more range would be the big differences. It'd still be the smallest of the eurocanards, with all the limitations that entails. Cool, so does the Gripen E/F have any stats in this game? Because getting a few upgrades to make some Super Gripens would be pretty sweet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
You bet your bippy it does, and the IRST on it looks like an utter gamebreaker. https://wiki.baloogancampaign.com/index.php/DataAircraft?ID=3201 Edit: The extra range on it too gives it way longer time on station performing CAP missions. Quinntan fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
Is it 43 million from scratch, or 43 million to upgrade a current model? Edit: wow, article says the E is cheaper than the C. Thats wild. Loel fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:You bet your bippy it does, and the IRST on it looks like an utter gamebreaker. It looks like one of those loadouts carries 6 meteors, can our Gripens carry 6 meteors?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
Regarding botes/Gripens, are Sea Gripens* a thing in this setting Yooper? (*Basically a carrier version of the JAS39E that should be entering service around the time that this campaign is set and that is literally made for export.) I can't find any stats for it but it could be possible to customise the existing E/F variants. On a completely unrelated note there should be a few recently decommissioned aircraft carriers up for sale around 2020 as well. PenguinSalsa fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Apr 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
Loel posted:Is it 43 million from scratch, or 43 million to upgrade a current model? It's an upgrade, and a very substantial one too. If we were to go for an upgrade, providing Yooper allows it, we'd be without the Gripens for a while. Cathode Raymond posted:It looks like one of those loadouts carries 6 meteors, can our Gripens carry 6 meteors? No, the most is four Meteors.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
Loel posted:Is it 43 million from scratch, or 43 million to upgrade a current model? Really? I've seen it stated at 85 million here http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL5N18F4QE
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
A goon aircraft carrier, even a light one, would give us unparalleled operational flexibility. It would put us heads and tails above the competition. We just have to make sure we have enough spare funding for proper escorts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
Dreamsicle posted:Really? I've seen it stated at 85 million here 85 for new builds, 43 for the upgrade that the Swedes are doing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
sparkmaster posted:A goon aircraft carrier, even a light one, would give us unparalleled operational flexibility. It would put us heads and tails above the competition. We just have to make sure we have enough spare funding for proper escorts. I just priced out a $3 billion refit of a destroyer into a nuclear destroyer that can probably push 40 knots, in addition to having so much excess electric power it can run all the toys we want. E: In true thread/engineer fashion, I have made several wild assumptions that probably aren't true to reach these numbers. But whatever, it's close enough.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
PenguinSalsa posted:Regarding botes/Gripens, are Sea Gripens* a thing in this setting Yooper? On Gripen upgrades, maybe? If you see it in the news now there's a good chance they're about in the wild now. Saab has no issues supplying honest, well paying, customers like us. In regards to upgrades, it'd be a long term gripen downtime. I've read about the new line of gripens and it's a significant overhaul. Prices for ours are like $70 mil, like $85 for the new ones. Sea Gripens would probably be a few mil beyond that. Baloogan, makes RuleTheWavesCMANO 2025 please.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
sparkmaster posted:A goon aircraft carrier, even a light one, would give us unparalleled operational flexibility. It would put us heads and tails above the competition. We just have to make sure we have enough spare funding for proper escorts. Exactly. The Sea Gripen is even designed for the smaller European carriers. That would unfortunately mean that we couldn't base those sexy F/A/-18s or E/A-18s on the carrier though  Olothreutes posted:I just priced out a $3 billion refit of a destroyer into a nuclear destroyer that can probably push 40 knots, in addition to having so much excess electric power it can run all the toys we want. Intriguing. $3 billions is a bit pricey though, but some kind of cruiser backed up by ASW helicopters would probably be a decent start.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
I don't know if there would be that many old carriers knocking around to be honest. I think the Spanish one might be available but that can only play host to Harriers, and the really old Brazilian one, but do we want a 60 year old carrier that's getting scrapped because it's practically impossible to keep it going?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
Yo, can we add the B-1R to the price list (as an upgrade for any B-1s purchased)? quote:The B-1R was a proposed upgrade of existing B-1B aircraft.[147] The B-1R (R for "regional") would be fitted with advanced radars, air-to-air missiles, and new Pratt & Whitney F119 engines. This variant would have a top speed of Mach 2.2, but with 20% shorter range.[148] LostCosmonaut fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Apr 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:Yo, can we add the B-1R to the price list (as an upgrade for any B-1s purchased)? Whats the cost? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
It never went anywhere, I don't think. And we shouldn't buy a carrier, imo. The ones that would be available wouldn't be able to use our fixed wing stuff. The IRST on the Super Gripen would be sweet, but we'd still be using our AWACS to monitor the airspace at large. IRST is sweet to confirm "Yep, that anomalous blip you reported is indeed a stealth fighter, commander" though so it's definitely a useful capability, weather permitting. In fact were we using realistic weather patterns, I doubt the Rafales lost near Lhasa would have been able to ID those J-20s at all. That'd have been a nightmare 
Dandywalken fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Apr 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 00:40 |
|
|
We are probably never going to be able to assemble the cash for a carrier and escorts just by taking contracts. Assuming we clean up Angola, our operations there plus our destruction of an entire Chinese airfield gives us a pretty high profile. How about going public with an IPO to raise capital?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:34
|
|