Thorin wrote:McAvoy wrote:Yes you can paint something to make it stealthy. But if you really look at the Super Hornet very carefully, there are other things on it that is stealth based. However there is more to that stealth paint than a can of paint. It's painted in layers. Abit more than a coat of paint.
Okay well I am going to flat out tell you you're wrong; the shape, aerodynamics, and engine output/signature all play a major part in stealth technology - particularly, getting the shape right to lower a planes radar cross section (this is extremely difficult), and reducing the engine signature as much as possible. A 20 foot long jet of superheated gas shows up pretty easily on a whole lot of tracking equipment.
You are correct. But you are wrong about one thing. Nuclear powered ships are different then their conventional counterparts. I assuming you are intelligent enough to know that a conventional powered ship and a nuclear powered ship requires a entirely different layout in their propulsion machinery. In the case of surface ships, they do not require a funnel.
In addition, something for carriers is the extra steam the nuke ships generate. This is essential to the catapults that launch off of the planes off of the carriers. Small things here and there.
No, a weapon is a collection of it's parts. A gun with it's bullet. A ship with it's propulsion, damage control, weapon outfit, defense and so forth.
Part of the argument about nuclear power was the fact did a CVN (Enterprise/Nimitz) change the world or did it's original CV counterpart (Forrestal) change the world. Not semantics. Nuclear power changes alot and for the good on how a aircraft carrier operates. The two biggest obvious is range, and aviation fuel carrying capacity.
It's still semantics. So is the missile launcher on the deck of a frigate not a weapon? If you had it on the back of a truck (soviet-style) you'd call it so, but not on a ship? What about on a truck on the ship? It's all rather arbitrary (and slightly beside the point)[/quote]
Ships carry weapons. A stable weapons platform in conjunction of it's mission/job makes up for the whole of a ship. Same goes for the plane. The plane itself is not a weapon either until you put weapons on it.
It''s impossible to come to a solid conclusion. I'd always say the 'first' is the one that changes most. That 'first' weapon changes the world more not only because of its inherant properties, but because it gives rise to its very successors. So you could say the Forrestal was the most revolutionary because it was the first nuclear powered ship and it gave rise to the Nimitz.
Incorrect. I hope that was a typo or you are betraying your lack of knowledge of the subject. The Forrestal class was not nuclear powered.
You need a discrete and significant 'jump' in technology for it to do something major and world changing. Or have some form of unconventional revolutionary aspect (like the AK-47 and its black market).
Having said all that, I still don't think that any nuclear powered ship/submarine significantly improved on its predecessor enough, to be considered a single point of world changing weaponary.
Incorrect. A nuclear powered submarine is a huge step over it's coventional counterpart. Simply put it can stay underneath the water far, far longer. That is a submarine's main weapon, stealth.