These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

The US Navy is Amarran. Go figure...
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Micheal Dietrich
Kings Gambit Black
#21 - 2013-04-09 19:03:43 UTC
silens vesica wrote:
Micheal Dietrich wrote:
silens vesica wrote:
Concurssi Mellenar wrote:
I want to see the railgun and some UAVs fitted into some cool looking ship, like maybe the littoral combat ship for example. Then we'd have a Gallente vessel ready to bring glory to the federation.

The Cyclone-class boats are about what you're looking for, already.


Autocannon speed tankers, those are obviously Minmater builds, which is double backed by the fact that they are classified as Cyclone class and one of them is the Tornado.

Missiles and light drones, too. Including anti-shipping Harpoon missiles in some configurations, which would probably be classed as HAMs in EVE parlance.

OTOH, those aren't flimsy collections of spars - I've been aboard a couple - but they are definitely speed tankers.



Well considering the Cyclone is a missile boat now, that makes it even more relevant. In fact it couldn't just be coincidence could it?

Out of Pod is getting In the Pod - Join in game channel **IG OOPE **
Angelique Duchemin
Team Evil
#22 - 2013-04-09 20:10:41 UTC
Quote:
A lot about that cost figure depends on successful integration aboard a ship's deck; successfully drawing from a ship's power without compromising the propulsion systems


They just need to engage siege mode that's all.


As for Big E. It might be big but it's incredibly old. Even if they did renovate it the ship is riddled with problems and fields less aircraft than smaller more modern Carriers.

The only reason they sent it out was in hopes that Iran would sink it so the Navy could appeal to congress for a new Carrier without burdening their own budget.

The very sun of heaven seemed distorted when viewed through the polarising miasma welling out from this sea-soaked perversion, and twisted menace and suspense lurked leeringly in those crazily elusive angles of carven rock where a second glance shewed concavity after the first shewed convexity.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#23 - 2013-04-09 20:58:36 UTC
Angelique Duchemin wrote:


As for Big E. It might be big but it's incredibly old.


Shes a young'n compared to the ships we have.

We only just got rid of a WW1 cruiser the other year and the flagship of the First Sea Lord was built in 1765Lol
Graygor
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2013-04-10 04:58:50 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Angelique Duchemin wrote:


As for Big E. It might be big but it's incredibly old.


Shes a young'n compared to the ships we have.

We only just got rid of a WW1 cruiser the other year and the flagship of the First Sea Lord was built in 1765Lol


Just shows how standards have been slipping. The old stuff was built to last.

Although dreads suck and were nerfed to death along with BS. (Wow as above so below is true in eve!)

Anyone know when the titan patch is coming?

"I think you should buy a new Mayan calendar. Mine has muscle cars on it." - Kenneth O'Hara

"I dont think that can happen, you can see Gray has his invuln field on in his portrait." - Commissar "Cake" Kate
Alara IonStorm
#25 - 2013-04-10 05:16:29 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

the flagship of the First Sea Lord was built in 1765Lol

It runs entirely on green energy.

Rest of Navy to follow suit.
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#26 - 2013-04-10 14:15:32 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Angelique Duchemin wrote:


As for Big E. It might be big but it's incredibly old.


Shes a young'n compared to the ships we have.

We only just got rid of a WW1 cruiser the other year and the flagship of the First Sea Lord was built in 1765Lol
We've got one almost as old, and still sea-worthy (for certain values of 'sea worthy')

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#27 - 2013-04-10 14:17:02 UTC
BTW:

April 10, 1963: USS Thresher (SSN 593), on eternal patrol with 129 souls aboard.

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
#28 - 2013-04-11 10:38:52 UTC
what is this...

"Amarran"

of which you speak?
Kirjava
Lothian Enterprises
#29 - 2013-04-11 12:06:40 UTC
Nerf America, boost Royal Navy Cry

We are working on Railguns over here.... granted we are building them for the US Navy, but BAE is the leader in Railgun systems development at the moment.... So in theory we can just have the USN cover costs for R&D and rebuild HMS Dreadnought out of a halfbuilt Elizabeth Class Hull Pirate

[center]Haruhiists - Overloading Out of Pod discussions since 2007. /人◕‿‿◕人\ Unban Saede![/center]
Graygor
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2013-04-11 12:08:06 UTC
Bring back the dreads i say!

"I think you should buy a new Mayan calendar. Mine has muscle cars on it." - Kenneth O'Hara

"I dont think that can happen, you can see Gray has his invuln field on in his portrait." - Commissar "Cake" Kate
Commissar Kate
Kesukka
#31 - 2013-04-11 17:42:56 UTC
WTB Iowa class battleship with railguns and lasers. Twisted

-k8

My Fanclub
Eli Green
The Arrow Project
#32 - 2013-04-11 17:51:45 UTC
patiently waits for plasma cannons to be invented.

wumbo
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#33 - 2013-04-11 18:14:58 UTC
Eli Green wrote:
patiently waits for plasma cannons to be invented.


One was built in the 70s.
Eli Green
The Arrow Project
#34 - 2013-04-11 18:46:43 UTC
Micheal Dietrich
Kings Gambit Black
#35 - 2013-04-11 18:48:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Micheal Dietrich
What is everyone's obsession with bringing back Battleships? While they were King in WW1, WW2 proved that air superiority was the way. As the old saying goes, it is always better to take the high ground.

Furthermore, while railguns may be impressive with their mach 5 trajectories and powder-less rounds, They are still severely limited in what they can accomplish compared to a missile.

Finally, on top of all that they are slow, large, lumbering, expensive targets. Here we have another thread talking about cutting costs in the military budget and yet on in the same note we want to recreate these gigantic money pits that can be outperformed and outmaneuvered by ships a quarter of their size.

Wars evolve and tactics change. Battleships had their time.

Out of Pod is getting In the Pod - Join in game channel **IG OOPE **
Eli Green
The Arrow Project
#36 - 2013-04-11 18:50:56 UTC
Micheal Dietrich wrote:
What is everyone's obsession with bringing back Battleships? While they were King in WW1, WW2 proved that air superiority was the way. As the old saying goes, it is always better to take the high ground.

Furthermore, while railguns may be impressive with their mach 5 trajectories and powder-less rounds, They are still severely limited in what they can accomplish compared to a missile.

Finally, on top of all that they are slow, large, lumbering, expensive targets. Here we have another thread talking about cutting costs in the military budget and yet on in the same note we want to recreate these gigantic money pits that can be outperformed and outmaneuvered by ships a quarter of their size.

Wars evolve and tactics change. Battleships had their time.


Your right, now where's my orbital cannon Pirate

wumbo
Commissar Kate
Kesukka
#37 - 2013-04-11 19:00:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Commissar Kate
Micheal Dietrich wrote:
What is everyone's obsession with bringing back Battleships? While they were King in WW1, WW2 proved that air superiority was the way. As the old saying goes, it is always better to take the high ground.

Furthermore, while railguns may be impressive with their mach 5 trajectories and powder-less rounds, They are still severely limited in what they can accomplish compared to a missile.

Finally, on top of all that they are slow, large, lumbering, expensive targets. Here we have another thread talking about cutting costs in the military budget and yet on in the same note we want to recreate these gigantic money pits that can be outperformed and outmaneuvered by ships a quarter of their size.

Wars evolve and tactics change. Battleships had their time.



I'm fully aware that battleships were outclassed by carriers/air warfare a long time ago, I guess is just nostalgia about the battleships.


Submarines are still relevant and effective, no need of a battleship anymore when you have SSGN setting off the coast with 100+ cruise missiles ready to go or even just a fast attack boat with dozen or so cruise missiles, plus you can factor in the stealth of a sub.

-k8

My Fanclub
Eurydia Vespasian
Storm Hunters
#38 - 2013-04-11 19:27:53 UTC
i think we should bring back the phalanx as the standard infantry battle formation. it would destroy all.
Concurssi Mellenar
Doomheim
#39 - 2013-04-11 19:33:29 UTC
Guns are overrated. We should bring back short swords since they're obviously the most lethal weapon this side of the EVE gate.

He who controls the veld, controls the universe.
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#40 - 2013-04-11 20:19:53 UTC
Micheal Dietrich wrote:

Wars evolve and tactics change. Battleships had their time.

This squid says: You are correct, Sir!

But they're big and impressive. Which impresses people who don't study the details.

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc
Previous page123Next page