Navy reusing state names as ships. All are now subs.

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
30,160
3,302
126
link

"Six of the newer submarines are being built now and are named for the states of Virginia, Texas, Hawai'i, North Carolina, New Hampshire and New Mexico."

i think no longer preserving the heritage of the Battleships by re-using their names
 

GagHalfrunt

Lifer
Apr 19, 2001
25,297
2,001
126
The navy has been using state names for subs since 1979 when the first Ohio Class was launched. What's the problem?
 

GagHalfrunt

Lifer
Apr 19, 2001
25,297
2,001
126
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
battleships will always be infinitely more bada$$ than subs

If that was even remotely true they'd still be building them. Battleships were probably the most expensive and least effective weapons in military history. They never truly impacted the outcome of any war.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
31,813
10,347
136
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
battleships will always be infinitely more bada$$ than subs

If that was even remotely true they'd still be building them. Battleships were probably the most expensive and least effective weapons in military history. They never truly impacted the outcome of any war.

i never said they were superior, just that they were more bada$$
 

GagHalfrunt

Lifer
Apr 19, 2001
25,297
2,001
126
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
battleships will always be infinitely more bada$$ than subs

If that was even remotely true they'd still be building them. Battleships were probably the most expensive and least effective weapons in military history. They never truly impacted the outcome of any war.

i never said they were superior, just that they were more bada$$

Exactly how bada$$ is a battleship that can be sunk by a single aircraft or a single submarine? They were not badda$$, they were giant targets.
 

Chaotic42

Lifer
Jun 15, 2001
33,929
1,098
126
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
They never truly impacted the outcome of any war.
I'd say they were pretty important in the Russo-Japanese War. They were also a symbol of power early last century. Sometimes the most powerful weapon never has to fire a shot to defeat an enemy.

 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
31,813
10,347
136
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
battleships will always be infinitely more bada$$ than subs

If that was even remotely true they'd still be building them. Battleships were probably the most expensive and least effective weapons in military history. They never truly impacted the outcome of any war.

i never said they were superior, just that they were more bada$$

Exactly how bada$$ is a battleship that can be sunk by a single aircraft or a single submarine? They were not badda$$, they were giant targets.

16'' cannons say otherwise
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,874
34,820
136
Originally posted by: Chaotic42
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
They never truly impacted the outcome of any war.
I'd say they were pretty important in the Russo-Japanese War. They were also a symbol of power early last century. Sometimes the most powerful weapon never has to fire a shot to defeat an enemy.

I'd also say through WWI as well. The Germans failed to neutralize the British fleet at Jutland and break the blockade.

They served important roles in WWII but were not the centerpieces of prior decades.
 

Yzzim

Lifer
Feb 13, 2000
11,990
1
76
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
battleships will always be infinitely more bada$$ than subs

If that was even remotely true they'd still be building them. Battleships were probably the most expensive and least effective weapons in military history. They never truly impacted the outcome of any war.

The Great White Fleet

Don't think it would have had the same effect if all the ships were subs
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,874
34,820
136
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
battleships will always be infinitely more bada$$ than subs

If that was even remotely true they'd still be building them. Battleships were probably the most expensive and least effective weapons in military history. They never truly impacted the outcome of any war.

i never said they were superior, just that they were more bada$$

Exactly how bada$$ is a battleship that can be sunk by a single aircraft or a single submarine? They were not badda$$, they were giant targets.

The last lines of battleships (not the WWI era holdovers) were actually extremely survivable. It took a hell of a lot more to take them out of action than a single torpedo or bomb.
 

Matt2

Diamond Member
Jul 28, 2001
4,762
0
0
Since when is there a Virginia-Class sub?

Jeez I havent paid attention to the US Navy for years.

Is this the replacement for the LA-Class attack sub?

What happened to the Seawolf-Class? SSN-21 I think it was.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,874
34,820
136
Originally posted by: Matt2
Since when is there a Virginia-Class sub?

Jeez I havent paid attention to the US Navy for years.

Is this the replacement for the LA-Class attack sub?

What happened to the Seawolf-Class? SSN-21 I think it was.

The Seawolf was too expensive per unit.

The Virgina Class is the replacement for the Los Angeles Class.
 

Matt2

Diamond Member
Jul 28, 2001
4,762
0
0
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Matt2
Since when is there a Virginia-Class sub?

Jeez I havent paid attention to the US Navy for years.

Is this the replacement for the LA-Class attack sub?

What happened to the Seawolf-Class? SSN-21 I think it was.

The Seawolf was too expensive per unit.

The Virgina Class is the replacement for the Los Angeles Class.

Well the 688-I subs were badass Hunter/Killer subs, this Virginia Class better be a suitable replacement.
 

Fritzo

Lifer
Jan 3, 2001
41,892
2,135
126
Battleships are no longer relevant. That's like saying we shouldn't be using names from wooden ships from the 1800's.
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,924
45
91
Originally posted by: FleshLight
Can't they just name it after current presidents like GWB?

They use presidents' names for aircraft carriers these days.

It's not uncommon to re-use a ship's name. I would take issue with naming a ship the USS Arizona or something like that, but most names are fair game I think.

But what about Montana??? Only state in the first 48 to never have a battleship (or perhaps just capital ship, but Wikipedia claims battleship) named after it. Give it a sub at least!
 

jdoggg12

Platinum Member
Aug 20, 2005
2,685
11
81

nutxo

Diamond Member
May 20, 2001
6,760
440
126
Originally posted by: jdoggg12
Battleships are badass, yes... but a submarine is infinitely more lethal, closely followed by a carrier. Big guns are no match for high-powered smart missiles and attack jets.

But... nothing on the water really come close to the coolness of battleship cannons...

http://content.answers.com/main/content...x-BB61_USS_Iowa_BB61_broadside_USN.jpg


one of my favorite wallpapers of all time
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7_Iowa_pic.jpg

Aside from tactical nukes a sub doesnt even come close in the potential for destruction a carrier has . Commanders of aircraft carriers are considered some of the most powerful men on the planet.


edit. BTW. Ive seen the Missouri fire her guns from the deck of the Ranger.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
31,813
10,347
136
Originally posted by: jdoggg12
Battleships are badass, yes... but a submarine is infinitely more lethal, closely followed by a carrier. Big guns are no match for high-powered smart missiles and attack jets.

But... nothing on the water really come close to the coolness of battleship cannons...

http://content.answers.com/main/content...x-BB61_USS_Iowa_BB61_broadside_USN.jpg


one of my favorite wallpapers of all time
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7_Iowa_pic.jpg

:Q

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nsNlmiLJGIw

iowa class ship fires its deck guns :Q:Q
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
96,201
15,785
126
Originally posted by: FleshLight
Can't they just name it after current presidents like GWB?

Please, he doesn't need any more accolades...
 

whistleclient

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2001
2,703
1
71

wasn't there a story a couple weeks back about them working on rail gun weapon system to replace the deck guns on battleships?
it had a much longer range and the added benefit that the projectiles didn't need explosives-- their kinetic energy was so great that they could destroy a building from the force.
 

Pacfanweb

Lifer
Jan 2, 2000
13,149
57
91
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
battleships will always be infinitely more bada$$ than subs

If that was even remotely true they'd still be building them. Battleships were probably the most expensive and least effective weapons in military history. They never truly impacted the outcome of any war.
Then you need to read up on your battleship history. Battleships played a huge part in WWI, in the Jap/Russian war, WWII, even Korea and Vietnam.

Look at the vast amount of British naval resources just one battleship, the Bismarck, tied up.

Same with the German pocket battleship, the Graf Spee.

The Bismarck's sister ship, Tirpitz, impacted shipping until nearly the end of the war, just by existing.
Look up Convoy PQ 17. 25 out of 36 ships lost, simply because intelligence reported the Tirpitz was hunting them, so the convoy scattered and the U-boats slaughtered them.
Tirpitz never even left port.

The loss of the US battleline at Pearl Harbor forced the US to fight a carrier war. This would not have been the US Navy's first choice to battle the Japs if all the BB's were still intact.

Korea...only the USS Missouri was still in service at the start of the war. The US Navy quickly recommissioned the rest of the Iowa class when they saw how effective Missouri was.

Vietnam...USS New Jersey was quickly recommissioned and spent a bit of time off the coast of Vietnam. Whenever the VC heard the Jersey was nearby, they would evactuate the entire area in range of her guns.
They did no such thing when carriers were nearby.
In fact, they feared the New Jersey so much that one of the conditions for them to start negotiations was that she be removed from the area.

Prior to WWI, nations with battleships would often send them to "show the flag" off the coast of hotspots of conflict, etc. Often just the arrival of a few BB's was enough to calm everyone down and avoid war or stop uprisings.

The Battleship Arms Race leading up to WWI was one of the contributing factors to the start of the war.

Our troops could still use some battleship support today. There's basically nothing that can resist their fire, and only a couple of countries have any missiles that could severely damage a BB....and that's if the missile could even get through. And Battleships are still some of the fastest, and maybe even THE fastest ships in the fleet.
The Navy is wasting time building the next version of the modern day BB, which probably won't be ready for another 10-15 years, while they could have 4 kick-ass BB's in service right now.
What would North Korea have thought a year or so ago if Bush could have sent a couple of BB's to patrol offshore? Something like 70% of NK's military targets are in range of the 16 inchers.
Battleships intimidate. They inspire awe. They are beautiful.
When the USS Missouri was recommissioned in the 80's, over 10,000 people turned out.
On her shakedown cruise, and basically a world tour, people in foreign countries regularly jammed the shoreline just to get a glimpse of a real battleship.
Contrast this with our supercarriers visiting, with minimal attendance by foreign gawkers.

I can keep on all night about the effectiveness of battleships, but you get the idea.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |