of course. And? still isnt interesting to have guided Nukes and a sub having more firepower then all bombs dropped in WWII. seriously isnt very fun having missle wars with people 500 miles away as opposed to up close and personal outdated FPS good ol fashion Cannon battle.

Up close on personal battles will be even more common today. With the proliferation of armed small craft used by groups like the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy and Somali Pirates engagements with 70 mile range Harpoons will be less common and engagements with 10 mile range cannons (or 1 mile range machine guns) far more common.

Well it isn't supposed to be 'fun'.

And as TLAM Strike says, battling an assymetric attack by pirates or extremists or Iranian boghammers would be a very 'whites of the eyeballs' experience. I promise you when you are facing those kinds of threats all the modern firepower in the world wont eliminate your fear.

Just as Javelin missiles havnt stopped soldiers having to do nasty up close work, Harpoon missiles havnt seen the end of naval gunnery (of all calibres). I'd argue that the 5 inch mount is still the primary weapon of western escorts, except perhaps the 12.7mm.

Yes, I should imagine the CIWS (Phalanx etc) will be pretty much well utilised in any future potential engagements.

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/1903/05018918.th.jpg

The newest Burkes coming off the line don't carry them anymore. Its going to be replaced by the RAM at some point, and the newer model 5in guns are just as effective with longer range.

The navy is really putting the old M2 to work again, the Burkes have five or six .50 cal gun positions currently.

Might be cheaper to adapt and put a squadron of AC-130 Spectres aboard a carrier :DL

The new Seahawks can carry Hellfires and Miniguns in addition to the sub hunting stuff. :03:

But what do you mean "adapt"? A C-130 can take off and land on a carrier...

never meant fun in real life. Modern naval warfare is pretty dull, but if you put a mixed WWII fleet vs another mixed WWII fleet, it would be VERY interesting. If a massive fleet battled one another today, itd be over in minutes. if they didnt sic nukes on one another, theyd just unleash a cascade of ASMs on each other.

Well maybe not minutes. Aircraft still are not that fast when cruising over long distances, once one side has located the other the battle would last about an hour or so- battle including the time it takes to get to the target- otherwise both a WWII and Modern Day sea battle would last minutes.

Midway was over in the space of hours:
06:00 Spruance orders the attack
07:00 1st aircraft are launched
09:20 1st USN air attack on Japanese CTF
10:00 2nd USN air attack destroys majority of Japanese Carriers

Lets compare that to a hypothetical modern day engagement
06:00 AWACS detects RED carrier group at approx 1000 nm from carrier. (it could be a long longer but 1000 nm was about the max range of a WWII naval bomber)
(lets assume it takes roughly the same time to, fuel, load and ready the planes. Its really doesn't normally, but that is another topic...)
07:00 8 F/A-18 Hornets are launched with Harpoon ASMs and 8 F/A-18E Super Hornets are launched with AAW loadouts- both Hornet groups have drop tanks, 4 S-3B Vikings are launched for refueling. Speed about 600 knots (Avg cruise speed of F/A-18).
07:45 Strike package refuels approx 500 nm from carrier
08:30 Strike Package launches 16 AGM-84 Harpoon missiles, strike package refuels and returns to carrier around 10:00

Not much of a difference, about two hours at around the same distance. In other words the combat time is cut in about half.

i said MIXED fleet. mixed WWII fleets as in DD,CL,CA,BB and even SS. didnt mean including carriers in what i said. besides they wouldnt have to send fighters. just ship launched cruise missles. as opposed to WWII, where you cant detect fleets until theyre in your face practically, and having shells fly. there wouldve also been torpedoes flying.

No carriers? That's discounting one of the most important and decisive naval weapon in World War II; who has ever voluntarily sailed into combat without them?

In World War II fleets wouldn't be detected when they're 'in your face', there were amazing inventions such as recon aircraft (Even on cruisers and battleships) and shipborne radar that fixed this problem, much as they do nowadays.

And torpedoes can't technically fly without a rocket...

I wasn't sure it was possible with a fully laden gunship carrying the ammo for the 20, 40 and 1o5mm weapons :hmmm:

Fighters and bombers have greater range than cruise missiles. The only large ASM in the USN is the Harpoon with a range of only 70 nm. A F/A-18 Hornet has a combat radius of 400 nm, with refueling it could be extended to around 3100 nm using carrier based tanker aircraft only (S-3 Vikings).

... off the top of my head I would have to say the HMS Hood, Prince of Wales, Repulse... :hmmm:

Exactly as I recall after the Bismark sank the Hood she was tracked by shore based recon aircraft in addition to the RN Cruisers that trailed her.

HMS Victorious was present and launched an attack on the Bismarck the very same day.

Prince of Wales and Repulse were supposed to have a carrier, HMS Indomitable, but she broke down along the way.

But she was not part of the Hood/PofW SAG, she was assigned to the KGV/Repulse SAG about 300 nm to the south of Hood and thus not range to help much (Range of Fairey Swordfish only 475 nm).

Don't forget HMS Hermes a Light Carrier. She was considered too slow to operated with the two battleships but she was fully operational and in the area.