Ship of the Weekend - Executor

[Deepcrush]

I mean, what kind of people are frightened by the size of a vehicle?

Revisit this when you see your friend ground alive under one. Think again when you have nothing to stop it and just have to watch.

Yeah, because a 40 ton tank driving over somebody isn't nearly as scary as a 60 ton tank doing it, is it?

Its not about a tank, but a small ship with six 5 inch cannon vs having a big ship with twelve 16 inch cannons. One shell from each can kill you. But the big ship will cause a lot more fear.

[Sonic Glitch]

Its not about a tank, but a small ship with six 5 inch cannon vs having a big ship with twelve 16 inch cannons. One shell from each can kill you. But the big ship will cause a lot more fear.

I agree, that's why I've been in favor of keeping battleships around. Cruisers and Frigates and such lack that visceral feeling of cold dread you get knowing you're in for a world of hurt if you see the tops of a battlewagon over the horizon.

[Sionnach Glic]

You can't really compare the Executor-class to modern day navies. The Imperial Starfleet and any modern navy are completely different.

As for battleships nowadays, they're completely obsolete. Only useful for shelling coastlines, which simply doesn't justify the expense of keeping them around when you can just get a carrier to unleash hell on the region in question with far more accuracy and discretion.

[Captain Seafort]

As for battleships nowadays, they're completely obsolete. Only useful for shelling coastlines, which simply doesn't justify the expense of keeping them around when you can just get a carrier to unleash hell on the region in question with far more accuracy and discretion.

The problem with air support vis a vis naval gunfire support is that its a lot more transient. An aircraft travels to the target, delivers its ordnace, and then returns to base. A warship can remain off the coast all but indefinately, available to provide fire support to any unit in trouble immediately, and continue to do so for hours on end. A carrier simply can't do that - it would take up most of the air wing flying round-the-clock sorties. It would also be a waste of their capabilities - aircraft would be much better used for long-range strikes against strategic targets.

When battleships come into the equation you've also got firepower to consider. A modern US Navy air wing has a strike force of 48 Super Hornets, each with a maximum bombload of eight tons (in practice it would be less - they'd be carrying drop tanks and AAMs as well as bombs). That's about 380 tons of HE onto a given target in a strike, after which they'd have to go back to the ship to refuel and rearm. An Iowa class battleship could deliver an equivalent weight of shellfire in less than twenty minutes, and do continuously for hours.

When it comes to heavy, sustained bombardment of a fortified coastline, even modern air power simply can't match a battleship.

[Aaron]

I agree, that's why I've been in favor of keeping battleships around. Cruisers and Frigates and such lack that visceral feeling of cold dread you get knowing you're in for a world of hurt if you see the tops of a battlewagon over the horizon.

True enough, unfortunately the US Navy no longer has the technical knowledge required to operate the Iowa class and her old steam drives. Add to that they no longer have the ability to manufacture barrel liners or most of the stuff required for the main guns. The ships are grossly obselete and only a massive and costly refit could bring them up to spec. It would be cheaper to design and build a brand new nuclear powered BB than to do that. However I doubt the Navy is prepared to spend the money and recruit the extra personnel required to do either, especially for a ship with such limited utility and with such massive vulnerability.

[Sionnach Glic]

The problem with air support vis a vis naval gunfire support is that its a lot more transient. An aircraft travels to the target, delivers its ordnace, and then returns to base. A warship can remain off the coast all but indefinately, available to provide fire support to any unit in trouble immediately, and continue to do so for hours on end. A carrier simply can't do that - it would take up most of the air wing flying round-the-clock sorties. It would also be a waste of their capabilities - aircraft would be much better used for long-range strikes against strategic targets.

When battleships come into the equation you've also got firepower to consider. A modern US Navy air wing has a strike force of 48 Super Hornets, each with a maximum bombload of eight tons (in practice it would be less - they'd be carrying drop tanks and AAMs as well as bombs). That's about 380 tons of HE onto a given target in a strike, after which they'd have to go back to the ship to refuel and rearm. An Iowa class battleship could deliver an equivalent weight of shellfire in less than twenty minutes, and do continuously for hours.

When it comes to heavy, sustained bombardment of a fortified coastline, even modern air power simply can't match a battleship.

You undoubtedly know far more about the topic than I, so conceded on the subject of carriers. But couldn't you achieve the same results as a battleship with a cruiser with a load of missiles?

[Aaron]

You undoubtedly know far more about the topic than I, so conceded on the subject of carriers. But couldn't you achieve the same results as a battleship with a cruiser with a load of missiles?

Yes you could, the GMLRS already has a warhead equal to a 16 inch shell. So really the only thing the 16 inch guns are bringing are cost savings per round. But seeing as new guns, mountings, vessel, tools, dies etc would have to be built to get those into service, you may as well just start cranking out missiles.

[Captain Seafort]

You undoubtedly know far more about the topic than I, so conceded on the subject of carriers. But couldn't you achieve the same results as a battleship with a cruiser with a load of missiles?

Not even close - missiles are useful, but they're also unbelievably expensive. Shells, by comparison, are dirt cheap, so you can fire hundreds of them without worrying about running out.

[Sionnach Glic]

Hm, alright. Thanks.

[Sonic Glitch]

I agree, that's why I've been in favor of keeping battleships around. Cruisers and Frigates and such lack that visceral feeling of cold dread you get knowing you're in for a world of hurt if you see the tops of a battlewagon over the horizon.

True enough, unfortunately the US Navy no longer has the technical knowledge required to operate the Iowa class and her old steam drives. Add to that they no longer have the ability to manufacture barrel liners or most of the stuff required for the main guns. The ships are grossly obselete and only a massive and costly refit could bring them up to spec. It would be cheaper to design and build a brand new nuclear powered BB than to do that. However I doubt the Navy is prepared to spend the money and recruit the extra personnel required to do either, especially for a ship with such limited utility and with such massive vulnerability.

And if they were active, I wouldn't be able to go down to Camden and get a tour of the USS New Jersey whenever it suits my fancy.

[Monroe]

Well real life is different in that we can't afford to have massive battle stations. Nor is there a real need because we're not in the same war footing. Star Wars a Super Star Destroyer bankrupts 3 systems out of millions and millions. Seems like a fair trade off to me. I think they're very useful as the core to fleet squadrons.

[Sionnach Glic]

I'm rather skeptical of KJA's claim that the Executor bankrupted anything, personaly. It's an empire with the resources of a galaxy and at least a million planets, with probably way more. To suggest that they encounter difficulties building a 17KM long battleship when they're capable of constructing a 900KM wide battlestation in secret using just one shipping company without anyone noticing a tonne of missing materials or funds is just plain illogical.

[Monroe]

True. I really wish I could write a Star Wars book that really puts a bit of scope in on some things.

[Captain Seafort]

I'm rather skeptical of KJA's claim that the Executor bankrupted anything, personaly.

It would certainly have bankrupted an Outer Rim world, such as Tatooine, and possibly even one of the wealthier inner worlds, such as Naboo. Claiming it could have bankrupted the likes of Kuat or Corellia, let alone the entire Empire is of course ludicrous.

[Deepcrush]

One ISD cost about the GNP of the avg world. The richer core worlds could pay out several ISDs per year. A world like Kuat that runs a shipyard so massive that it wraps around the planet could pay out an SSD with simple ease.