but. it. only. protects. that one section of ship, the rest of the ship is vulnerable, and it's those parts that are statistically likely to be hit more than that monstrosity.
and weapons fire that's accurate enough to reliably hit specifically center of mass is also accurate enough to aim at anywhere else...
have you considered using magnets to attract incoming shells to the protected area?
Why degauss ships when you can magnetize them even stronger? A side benefit is that if you lose your compass, you just let the ship float freely and it will point north, needle-and-cork-compass style!
Also that's a lot of weight, fuel consumption and inertia right there. Especially weight and a need to fuel that rotation, so oversized machinery + fuel storage.
They know that, because that ship is armed like a pre-dreadnought without the big secondary armament.
Torpedoes? You mount big spinning things on the sides.
Mines? Big spinning things on the bottom.
Only problem is that when you have all these huge things spinning at very high speed you get weird and unpredictable effects. (Vaguely waves hand to describe phenomena not yet known to science or God.)
Do they launch from carriers that have a giant robot hand to pull the cord?
Na, when the chick launches the ship, instead of cracking a bottle of champagne, she pulls a ripcord (which activates a large robot hand pulling a larger ripcord that spins the ship). It never stops spinning after that.
when you have all these huge things spinning at very high speed you get weird and unpredictable effects. (Vaguely waves hand to describe phenomena not yet known to science or God.)
Found the kid who was out sick the day they covered the gyroscopic effect in physics class.
Maybe the giant flywheel is actually for offense too. Get close to land and let that shit rip like a beyblade. If you actually had a giant piece of metal spinning that fast, might as well use its insane kinetic energy for something more fun.
Seriously though, it would be the nuttiest flywheel ever. Someone should do the math on how much energy a 300 ton flywheel could store.
Did you even read the post? Nets cover the entire deck of the ship. Any bombs that hit the turret get bounced into either the sea or the nets. Any bomb that hits or gets tossed into a net gets collected by the deck crew and launched back at the enemy. It's foolproof.
What if an airbus actually operated like a bus and people just skydived to their destination at their stop? I’m sure we can combine some sort of V-22/F-35 hover technology and commercial passenger jets.
It doubles as gyroscopic stabilization, but don't be in the same gridsquare if the bearings seize or the shaft gets warped as when, yanno, someone were to shoot at it with heavy artillery.
That'd be like in the pinky & brain episode where they commandeer a sub that has an anti theft bar.
That sucker's gonna steer a whole looot opposed to the gyro's rotation.
High sea states would be a hell of a lot more interesting, waves slamming into the ship would produce concussions an order of magnitude harder than without the gyro because the ship wants to move... But the gyro doesn't.
Are shells in the air long enough for radar to track them and fire a CIWS or something, or would that not make much difference to the inertia of the incoming shell?
How much laser wattage would you need to explode an incoming shell? Gigawatts? Terawatts? Can a laser even be aimed/fired that fast?
Sometimes I am a bit concerned by just how advanced our missiles have become, to the detriment of the obviously superior gun.
If we're talking about shells in the same era as this picture, they never pushed a muzzle velocity greater than 900m/s, which is less than Mach 3.
The Kh-22 missile, which the US spent the better part of half of the cold war trying to counter (it's part of the reason the F-14 exists), can push past Mach 4.
So in terms of tracking, I'd say modern Aegis ships should have no problem, although for interception I would think they wouldn't resort to CIWS except for a last resort, as they now have "quad-packed" ESSM missiles available in the Mk 41 VLS, which can also push Mach 4 and would be able to be fired at much longer ranges.
Are shells in the air long enough for radar to track them and fire a CIWS or something, or would that not make much difference to the inertia of the incoming shell?
Yes, the land based version of the Phalanx has been very successful against artillery. A big problem would be that a sustained artillery barrage would exceed the CIWS ammo load.
How much laser wattage would you need to explode an incoming shell? Gigawatts? Terawatts? Can a laser even be aimed/fired that fast?
Israel's Iron Beam runs a 100 kW laser and has been used against short-range artillery, mortars, and rockets at up to 4 miles. A big problem with lasers is that things like rain, smoke, fog etc. significantly reduce capability.
The spinning is genius we will add rotors as well so the boat can fly. With all the weight savings from removing the armor it can actually get airborne. There are no flaws with this plan.
but. it. only. protects. that one section of ship, the rest of the ship is vulnerable, and it's those parts that are statistically likely to be hit more than that monstrosity.
and weapons fire that's accurate enough to reliably hit specifically center of mass is also accurate enough to aim at anywhere else...
*pained screaming*
Yes, but have you considered using magnets to attract incoming shells to the protected area?
Sometimes my genius even terrifies me.
Rest assured, we are also just as terrified.
Why degauss ships when you can magnetize them even stronger? A side benefit is that if you lose your compass, you just let the ship float freely and it will point north, needle-and-cork-compass style!
Also that's a lot of weight, fuel consumption and inertia right there. Especially weight and a need to fuel that rotation, so oversized machinery + fuel storage.
They know that, because that ship is armed like a pre-dreadnought without the big secondary armament.
Oh, and by the way - do you see torpedo boats?
Torpedoes? You mount big spinning things on the sides.
Mines? Big spinning things on the bottom.
Only problem is that when you have all these huge things spinning at very high speed you get weird and unpredictable effects. (Vaguely waves hand to describe phenomena not yet known to science or God.)
What if we make the whole battleship a big spinning top, and it's completlely impregnable?
World isnt ready for beyblade battleship
Do they launch from carriers that have a giant robot hand to pull the cord?
Na, when the chick launches the ship, instead of cracking a bottle of champagne, she pulls a ripcord (which activates a large robot hand pulling a larger ripcord that spins the ship). It never stops spinning after that.
I can get behind that as long as the dock looks like a stadium
I like your thinking.
Found the kid who was out sick the day they covered the gyroscopic effect in physics class.
Maybe the giant flywheel is actually for offense too. Get close to land and let that shit rip like a beyblade. If you actually had a giant piece of metal spinning that fast, might as well use its insane kinetic energy for something more fun.
Seriously though, it would be the nuttiest flywheel ever. Someone should do the math on how much energy a 300 ton flywheel could store.
They have a 130 ton one in Ireland that (together with synchronous condenser) has an inertia of 4,000 megawatt-seconds .
Just spin the entire ship.
Floating helicopter dick deploying.
Did you even read the post? Nets cover the entire deck of the ship. Any bombs that hit the turret get bounced into either the sea or the nets. Any bomb that hits or gets tossed into a net gets collected by the deck crew and launched back at the enemy. It's foolproof.
all or nothing armour scheme baby
Century old shitpost right here.
You may laugh, but the U.S. Patent Office does not have the luxury.
The picture is from September,1929 issue of Modern Mechanic
I don't know how but I think that this design is so absurd that it caused the great depression.
tfw I'm watching iron man on a redeye flight and the guy next to me says "oh this is my stop" and pulls the lever
What if an airbus actually operated like a bus and people just skydived to their destination at their stop? I’m sure we can combine some sort of V-22/F-35 hover technology and commercial passenger jets.
1929? This is what Battleships looked like in 1929
Did they have to use a ridiculously obsolete ironclads to model it because actual contemporary ships were too tall?
It doubles as gyroscopic stabilization, but don't be in the same gridsquare if the bearings seize or the shaft gets warped as when, yanno, someone were to shoot at it with heavy artillery.
This must have been a 'troll post' back when it was printed. It's dumb on every level.
That'd be like in the pinky & brain episode where they commandeer a sub that has an anti theft bar.
That sucker's gonna steer a whole looot opposed to the gyro's rotation.
High sea states would be a hell of a lot more interesting, waves slamming into the ship would produce concussions an order of magnitude harder than without the gyro because the ship wants to move... But the gyro doesn't.
"Navies won't have fun playing war with each other anymore" 😔
This is one of those things that works as a physics problem, but would be too impractical to actually do, like Rods From God.
How dare you besmirch our tungsten overlords
Are shells in the air long enough for radar to track them and fire a CIWS or something, or would that not make much difference to the inertia of the incoming shell?
How much laser wattage would you need to explode an incoming shell? Gigawatts? Terawatts? Can a laser even be aimed/fired that fast?
First of all, through LockMart all things are possible, so you should jot that down.
Sometimes I am a bit concerned by just how advanced our missiles have become, to the detriment of the obviously superior gun.
If we're talking about shells in the same era as this picture, they never pushed a muzzle velocity greater than 900m/s, which is less than Mach 3.
The Kh-22 missile, which the US spent the better part of half of the cold war trying to counter (it's part of the reason the F-14 exists), can push past Mach 4.
So in terms of tracking, I'd say modern Aegis ships should have no problem, although for interception I would think they wouldn't resort to CIWS except for a last resort, as they now have "quad-packed" ESSM missiles available in the Mk 41 VLS, which can also push Mach 4 and would be able to be fired at much longer ranges.
❤️
Yes, the land based version of the Phalanx has been very successful against artillery. A big problem would be that a sustained artillery barrage would exceed the CIWS ammo load.
Israel's Iron Beam runs a 100 kW laser and has been used against short-range artillery, mortars, and rockets at up to 4 miles. A big problem with lasers is that things like rain, smoke, fog etc. significantly reduce capability.
Time out guys! All bombs must land in the middle! New rule!
It needs to be more pointy.
The spinning is genius we will add rotors as well so the boat can fly. With all the weight savings from removing the armor it can actually get airborne. There are no flaws with this plan.