The Last Ship (TNT- Spoilers)

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
Original poster
May 5, 2008
17,019
16,464
The Misty Mountains
I watched last weeks episode of The Last Ship and wasn't disappointed.
As of the third episode, it's hanging in there, I'm still watching, but feels like they are just going through the motions. The acting seems wooden and the show lacks that extra something that could make it special. Having the world descend into anarchy seems a bit flat although on this ship it could of been presented as shown, but Emotional impact seems a bit mute.

Plot observations- Seems like the XO is not really in sync with his Captain. :) With a nuclear powered ship, the Russians seem to have a real advantage. Needing fuel all the time seems like a long term show stopper. If there is no hidden agenda, I'd think these two Captains would want to work together, not fight each other, although as presented, I have to blame the Russian. :p

As I recall, they are facing a Kirov Battle Cruiser which would be a formidable opponent against an Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer which I assume is also equipped with tactical nukes, although that has not been mentioned on the US side.

 

SandboxGeneral

Moderator emeritus
Sep 8, 2010
24,946
7,873
Detroit
I agree that the acting is mildly stiff and I'm chalking it up to the show and actors/actresses being new and hope they'll find their balance soon.

IRL, having the CO and XO not on the same page makes for interesting leadership aboard a ship. Actually, I'm reminded of Crimson Tide with Gene Hackman and Denzel Washington. I wonder if their asynchronous bond is by script design and is meant to carry throughout, or if it's a short-lived affair.
 

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
Original poster
May 5, 2008
17,019
16,464
The Misty Mountains
So it's Battlestar Galactica on a ship?
I would not characterize it in that manner, but BG is good for comparison of story telling, having much more depth in character development, while it's very limited in TLS with the focus on military tactics and technology and also avoids portraying ship board life, such as Master and Commander. They are just there on the ship seeking a cure. This can be compared to The Hunt For Red October and you can see that the dynamic on this show is of a lesser value.

...but, we are still watching it because a friend's daughter in the Navy, living in San Diego was an extra on it. Have not caught her yet. ;)

After the Russians showed up, the profile of the ship seemed familiar to me. Part of my job in the Navy was to become familiar with the USSR order of battle (1980s time frame). When I looked it up, I believe the Kirov was one of the few classes of nuclear powered Russian ships but without watching this episode again, the picture I posted looks different than what I remember seeing in the show. This might be a better picture of it where the fore deck appears shortened. The Russians liked their ships to look more muscular. :)


Kirov Battlecruiser


Arleigh Burke Aegis Destroyer
 
Last edited:

sk1wbw

Suspended
May 28, 2011
3,476
982
Williamsburg, Virginia
The Kirov is a formidable ship. That SA-N-6 is one bad ass surface to air missile. The Top Dome radar can guide two missiles to one incoming vampire and the first missile can hit it and the second missile can hit the debris. Pretty wicked.
 

quagmire

macrumors 603
Apr 19, 2004
6,255
1,061
The Iowa's were recommissioned in the 80's because of the Russian battlecruiser.
 

G51989

macrumors 68030
Feb 25, 2012
2,506
10
NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
The Iowa's were recommissioned in the 80's because of the Russian battlecruiser.
Indeed, I can't think that a recommissioned Iowa would have last long however against a Kirov however, esp in the 80s. It was just a bunch of box launchers and 80s CWIS which was questionable at best.
 
Last edited:

Plutonius

macrumors 604
Feb 22, 2003
7,838
5,885
New Hampshire, USA
I found the first episode to be ok and I liked the 2nd and 3rd episodes. I thought the 4th episode was very slow (tempted to switch stations) and the previews didn't look promising for the 5th episode.

Just wearing an oxygen mask and removing it when you think it is safe doesn't seem to me like realistic bio-hazard protocols.

With a nuclear powered ship, the Russians seem to have a real advantage. Needing fuel all the time seems like a long term show stopper.
The crew capacity of the Russian ship is twice that of the US ship. You don't have to burn fuel (other than a small amount to generate electricity) but you do have to feed crew members.
 
Last edited:

Don't panic

macrumors 603
Jan 30, 2004
5,551
695
having a drink at Milliways
i haven't watched it yet, and it could be interesting, except for the fact that it has "canceled show" written all over it. i hate to start watching a show and then it is canceled.
unfortunately it happens to most of the show i enjoy.
 

sk1wbw

Suspended
May 28, 2011
3,476
982
Williamsburg, Virginia
Indeed, I can't think that a recommissioned Iowa would have last long however against a Kirov however, esp in the 80s. It was just a bunch of box launchers and 80s CWIS which was questionable at best.
An Iowa class BB versus a Kirov would be a no contest. The threat radius of a BB is about 2000 nm vs the SS-N-19's 300 or so. You've got Tomahawks and Harpoons on there. Sure, a few would get it by the SA-N-6 but all it takes on a Russian ship is one hit. Their damage control and fire fighting and general ship's integrity is nowhere near ours.
 

quagmire

macrumors 603
Apr 19, 2004
6,255
1,061
An Iowa class BB versus a Kirov would be a no contest. The threat radius of a BB is about 2000 nm vs the SS-N-19's 300 or so. You've got Tomahawks and Harpoons on there. Sure, a few would get it by the SA-N-6 but all it takes on a Russian ship is one hit. Their damage control and fire fighting and general ship's integrity is nowhere near ours.
The Harpoon anti-ship missile has a range of 67 miles. The Russian anti-ship missiles have about 300 miles. Not to mention the Russian anti-ship missile is supersonic vs the Harpoon being subsonic.
 

G51989

macrumors 68030
Feb 25, 2012
2,506
10
NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
An Iowa class BB versus a Kirov would be a no contest. The threat radius of a BB is about 2000 nm vs the SS-N-19's 300 or so. You've got Tomahawks and Harpoons on there. Sure, a few would get it by the SA-N-6 but all it takes on a Russian ship is one hit. Their damage control and fire fighting and general ship's integrity is nowhere near ours.
Tomahawks make REALLY bad anti ship missiles, even in the 80s they fly really slow and show up easily on Radar, the Kashtan CIWS would have made quick work of them. Harpoons are better, but you gotta realize the Kirovs have point defense missiles as well. They are better able to defend themselves against missles than an 80s Iowa was.

The Iowa might not sink, but one hit will take it out, lots of those ASW on Russian ships are nuclear tipped.
 

Plutonius

macrumors 604
Feb 22, 2003
7,838
5,885
New Hampshire, USA
i haven't watched it yet, and it could be interesting, except for the fact that it has "canceled show" written all over it. i hate to start watching a show and then it is canceled.
unfortunately it happens to most of the show i enjoy.
I would at least watch the first three. The first one was so-so (introduces the characters, plot, etc). The second and third are military action filled and you would like them. I thought the 4th one wasn't worth watching and the previews for next week look uninspiring :).
 

sk1wbw

Suspended
May 28, 2011
3,476
982
Williamsburg, Virginia
The Harpoon anti-ship missile has a range of 67 miles. The Russian anti-ship missiles have about 300 miles. Not to mention the Russian anti-ship missile is supersonic vs the Harpoon being subsonic.
Don't forget the TLAM. Its range is far far far great than the 19. Plus the 19 is so huge it would be easy for an SM-2/ER to knock it down.

----------

Tomahawks make REALLY bad anti ship missiles, even in the 80s they fly really slow and show up easily on Radar, the Kashtan CIWS would have made quick work of them. Harpoons are better, but you gotta realize the Kirovs have point defense missiles as well. They are better able to defend themselves against missles than an 80s Iowa was.

The Iowa might not sink, but one hit will take it out, lots of those ASW on Russian ships are nuclear tipped.
I'm talking about a 90s retrofitted BB, not one from the 80s.
 

quagmire

macrumors 603
Apr 19, 2004
6,255
1,061
The 90s ones never existed.

They were retired and laid up. As they should have been.

Bringing them back in the 80s was a waste.
It was worth it so we could have a relative decent quality pictures and videos of their guns firing. Well worth the cost of bringing them back..... ;) :p We would have to rely on crappy WWII era stuff to get our BB fix for us nostalgic folk if they were not.... :)

Don't mind the annoying music in the beginning.....




Of course if they were not brought back, maybe Iowa's Turret 2 would still be in once piece and those sailors still be alive.....
 
Last edited:

SandboxGeneral

Moderator emeritus
Sep 8, 2010
24,946
7,873
Detroit
Man I love battleships! I know they're obsolete in this age of precision smart weapons, but I wish we still used them.

Park one of those off the coast of an enemy's shore and the intimidation factor goes way up!

Here's the USS Missouri

 

G51989

macrumors 68030
Feb 25, 2012
2,506
10
NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
It was worth it so we could have a relative decent quality pictures and videos of their guns firing. Well worth the cost of bringing them back..... ;) :p We would have to rely on crappy WWII era stuff to get our BB fix for us nostalgic folk if they were not.... :)

..
Don't get me wrong.

Totally badass, INCREDIBLE machines.

But even in the 80s? A broken down Soviet Destroyer would have made quick work of them, their CWIS and Radar systems were TERRIBLE. In the Iraq war, the Wisconsin would be on the ocean floor if she didn't have British Frigates screening her ( she was fired on several times, her CWIS never picked any of those SCUDS up, the British ships did and downed the missles each time )

Of course if they were not brought back, maybe Iowa's Turret 2 would still be in once piece and those sailors still be alive.....
They were nothing but a Regan ego booster, in an actual war, they would be among the first on the ocean floor. Along with 2,000 men per ship.
 

quagmire

macrumors 603
Apr 19, 2004
6,255
1,061
Don't get me wrong.

Totally badass, INCREDIBLE machines.

But even in the 80s? A broken down Soviet Destroyer would have made quick work of them, their CWIS and Radar systems were TERRIBLE. In the Iraq war, the Wisconsin would be on the ocean floor if she didn't have British Frigates screening her ( she was fired on several times, her CWIS never picked any of those SCUDS up, the British ships did and downed the missles each time )
I knew about the CWIS's not being the best due to the blind spots caused by their own infrastructure, etc. But not about them not able to pick up missiles......

The Iowa's were badass though. Her own guns would knock her own electronics out( ah crappy WWII era stuff. Not sure if the 80's refit fixed that or not). Though they could not survive a hit from their own guns.

They were nothing but a Regan ego booster, in an actual war, they would be among the first on the ocean floor. Along with 2,000 men per ship.

Agreed. Like I said I am glad we have decent video of photo's of their guns firing due to their recommissioning, but bringing them back was useless in a sense of a real war. About the only thing they could be used for is shore bombardment/naval artillery platform, but as you mentioned they would probably be sunk before they could get their 16" guns in range.
 

G51989

macrumors 68030
Feb 25, 2012
2,506
10
NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
I knew about the CWIS's not being the best due to the blind spots caused by their own infrastructure, etc. But not about them not able to pick up missiles......
Well the shape of the ships was a problem, and lets be honest, I am not being anti murica, in the 80s, Soviet CWIS vastly outstripped US CWIS, that wasn't corrected until after the cold war was over. The soviets had pretty epic radar and point defense missiles at that point, and the Kirovs had the prototype Kashtan CIWS, which went navy wide in 1989



If I was in an Iowa up against a Kirov ? I would be praying as a last ditch effort.

The Iowa's were badass though. Her own guns would knock her own electronics out( ah crappy WWII era stuff. Not sure if the 80's refit fixed that or not). Though they could not survive a hit from their own guns.

Indeed they were, they did knock out some of the 80s stuff as well ;)

Some of the best guns of the WW2, I still perfer the British guns, just because on ships like the Warspite, they took direct hits on the barrel and turrets from land guns, and kept on firing for years ;)

Agreed. Like I said I am glad we have decent video of photo's of their guns firing due to their recommissioning, but bringing them back was useless in a sense of a real war. About the only thing they could be used for is shore bombardment/naval artillery platform, but as you mentioned they would probably be sunk before they could get their 16" guns in range.
Indeed, they were just to outdated.
 

SandboxGeneral

Moderator emeritus
Sep 8, 2010
24,946
7,873
Detroit
You guys are talking about the US vs the USSR ships in a one on one battle right?

In reality, the battleships had battle groups with them, like carriers do right? Destroyers and destroyer escorts, submarines and other ships which help protect them and get them into gun range for their targets.
 

sk1wbw

Suspended
May 28, 2011
3,476
982
Williamsburg, Virginia
The 90s ones never existed.

They were retired and laid up. As they should have been.

Bringing them back in the 80s was a waste.
A waste? The Iowa class BB was the most powerful surface warship in naval maritime history. Getting rid of them was a waste. And dude, they fought in Desert Shield/Storm. Which was in the early 90s.

----------

Don't get me wrong.

Totally badass, INCREDIBLE machines.

But even in the 80s? A broken down Soviet Destroyer would have made quick work of them, their CWIS and Radar systems were TERRIBLE. In the Iraq war, the Wisconsin would be on the ocean floor if she didn't have British Frigates screening her ( she was fired on several times, her CWIS never picked any of those SCUDS up, the British ships did and downed the missles each time )



They were nothing but a Regan ego booster, in an actual war, they would be among the first on the ocean floor. Along with 2,000 men per ship.

I really don't think you know what in the **** you're talking about. Seriously.

----------

You guys are talking about the US vs the USSR ships in a one on one battle right?

In reality, the battleships had battle groups with them, like carriers do right? Destroyers and destroyer escorts, submarines and other ships which help protect them and get them into gun range for their targets.
Yes, a typical CVN battle group consists of two 688s and probably 2 each of the Tico class and Burke class CG and DDG. Each of those ships has two VLS bays with about 120 tubes each. Nevermind the VLS bays on the 688s and the MK-48 ADCAPS on there as well.

Yes, the Kirov is a tough beast, but with a barrage of SM-2/SM-3 Block 3 missiles and who knows how many Harpoons coming at you, you ain't getting them all. And like I said before, the Russians basically have no quality at sea fire party or damage control capabilities.