If you get the Yamato.
Put radar.
AA missiles.
Replace every AA turret with a Phalanx CIWS.
Anti-torpedo missiles.
I doubt any force would be able to sink it.
What's the fucking point? You could have the exact same ship except much lighter by not having the stupid armor and guns.
>>27890845
you got to be 18 to post here, underage weeb
we stopped using battleships for the same reason we stopped using plates of armor
>>27890855
But then it would sink easily if hit by the 18 inch shells.
put radar
wave motion engine
wave motion gun
literally invincible
>>27890863
They stopped using plates of armor? What do they use instead?
>>27890845
1941 was a long time ago gramps,
If you want massive warships whose primary weapons are organic and not an air wing, you're gonna have to die and be reborn in a couple hundred years for the space race
>>27890845
>How well would a battleship do on modern days
Go back to english class nigger
>>27890878
this is what I meant by plates of armor
Even with the armor the Russians have those ginormous ASMs that will still punch right through no matter how many thousand times you fold it.
>>27890878
>What do they use instead?
CIWS and Jesus.
Practically a sitting duck against any modern military. Even with state-of-the-art active defense, spamming missiles would get hits.
>>27890870
And how exactly would the Yamato know where the other ship is? Have you ever heard of BVR?
> le Armored ship fag
They figured armor plates on warships weren't worth the extra weight and cost in the fucking 1950s, with 1950s era aircraft/bombs/missile/senor systems. It's 65 years more retarded a concept today.
>>27890895
but isnt our current navy sitting ducks to that?
http://www.johntreed.com/sittingducks.html
>>27890845
Didnt they upgrade the USS New Jersey throught vietnam and put tomahawks and other shit on it?
>>27890914
*http://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s-blog-about-military-matters/65448643-are-u-s-navy-surface-ships-sitting-ducks-to-enemies-with-modern-weapons
>>27890922
>cannot defend themselves
I'm getting really tired of these cunts who brush off the last several decades of anti-missile intercept advancements with LEL NAW. FUCK these cockbags.
>>27890917
The New Jersey's Vietnam upgrade was all electronics. They removed all her (now outdated) AA artillery. The Iowas didn't get Harpoons, Tomahawks, and CIWS until their 1980s refit, and still not SAMs.
>>27890917
They refitted all the Iowa-class ships.
We've got the 4 converted Ohio subs for carrying insane amounts of Tomahawks nowadays though.
And the Iowas always had to hang out in a Carrier Group just to defend them, it was basically used as a giant dick to show off to the Soviets.
That said the 16 inch guns did prove useful during the Gulf War, completely annihilating any Iraqi positions they found rather easily. Still, they're not useful enough to keep. Maybe if they were converted to giant AA ships with a fuckhuge radar.
How well would the Yamato do on WW2 days?
>>27890922
Okay, wow, I started reading this and I just cannot fucking fathom how stupid this dumb cunt is.
>Can you armor the ships so anti-ship missiles do not damage them? Nope. They have to stay relatively light so they can float and go 34.6 miles per hour.
>miles per hour
Somehow this fuckbag not knowing to express the speed in knots hurts more than his ignorance of WWII battleships that had 40% of their displacement in armor - and still made 35 fucking knots.
And under >cannot defend themselves the only weapon system he quotes is "electronic Gatling guns." No mention of the massive AEGIS defense system, no mention of the SM-2, the SM-3, the SM-6, the ESSM or the RAM systems. Its like this dumb fuckbitch has no fucking idea that the VLS system exists, or that the Arleigh-Burke class exists, or the Ticonderoga class exists - it's like this fuckbag shitwipe thinks it's the year 1960. Did he actually WRITE this in 1960?
10/trolled would rage again
>>27890914
>>27890922
>Too slow
>Anti-ship missiles can travel at speeds up to, what, 20,000 miles an hour in the case of an ICBM aimed at a carrier task force. Carriers move at 30 knots or so which is 34.6 miles per hour.
I'm dying
>>27890949
>How well would the Yamato do on WW2 days?
We just don't know.
well, you could upscale a kirov, but i doubt its effectiviness would be much better than what it already is
>>27890894
>CIWS
>Does anything
Please. America was testing it against a drone and it failed to take it out and the drone smashed right into the ship tearing huge hole in side killing officer. In the event of China using it's carrier killers, a lot of American metal is at the bottom of the ocean.
>>27890922
>Nowadays, you can probably create an Exocet-type, anti-ship missile from stuff you could buy at Radio Shack. Surface ships can no longer hide from the enemy like they did in World War II.
>>27891007
He was saying that's what the Iowas used after the refit, which is true.
Actual carrier groups have around 5 lines of defense shit has to go through before the Phalanx is ever relevant. It's for taking out small boat targets and is a last-ditch "oh shit oh shit oh shit" defense against missiles.
>>27890845
A proper shitpost, as expected from a boatfucker.
>>27891003
Currently a Kirov can accomodate 2 units of S300 But they still need BuK/Shtil scurrying around them so its kinda useless to make it bigger
>>27890845
i mean its not a bad plan, you forgot to replace the guns with asm's though, a fuck huge amount of them and then youd have something good, put it in a carrier group and youre good to fucking go son, god have mercy on youre enemies souls. possibly but fuck huge radar guided guns on the stern for shelling ground targets
>>27891007
>tearing huge hole
>>27890922
>the technological chain they comprise has some extremely weak links which would, in a fight with a modern enemy, likely be fatal.
>For example, the technology of the hull design is so old that it predates recorded human history—namely, the coffin shape to three sides and the bottom with a V-shaped prow on the front end. Cavemen carved that shape out of trees.
>Making it out of steel instead of wood is late Nineteenth Century technology.
>In terms of propulsion, the recently-built aircraft carrier U.S.S. Ronald Reagan is a steam ship. True, they heat the water with nuclear power rather than wood or coal, but the propellers are turned by steam. Before nuclear steam boilers, diesel engines were the most technologically-advanced ship propulsion. Steam boats are also Nineteenth Century technology.
just because a technology is old doesn't make it bad
steam and turbines are still highly efficient way to generate electricity
>mfw the 100k displacement Nimitz with its "19th century propulsion" is still a speed demon that can beat conventional carriers
>>27891393
put not but*
>>27890972
Serious question, why don't we just build boats that can outrun missiles? Then you can just scrap the armor and active defense and put it all into bigger guns.
Think about it.
>>27891535
Fuck this thread.
>>27890845
Would still be fine for coastal shelling or slaughtering somalis but I wouldn't put it in a navel battle
>replace diesel engines with nuclear reactor
>swap rolled steel hull with composite tank armor
>add hydrofoils
>attach scram jets for increased tactical speed
>upgrade Type 94 naval gun to 40cm metalstorm weapon system
I guess you could replace the classical steel armor with some type of composite/DU armor like you find in Abrams tanks. It would just be incredibly heavy and expensive.
>>27891715
for what purpose. The point of a battleship/dreadnought was to mount heavy guns in order to better punch through the side belt armor on other battleships/dreadnoughts/cruisers/battlecruisers
No one uses guns as a primary anti-ship system anymore. So a battleship today would just be mounting a huge number of anti-ship missiles, maybe really big anti-ship missiles. So why put all your eggs in one basket. Instead of building 1 really big ship, build several medium sized ships, you end up with the same fire power, but now its spread out so it doesnt get pasted by the first lucky hit to go through your defense screen (and something will get through)
You cant reasonably armor a ship anymore, back in the day everything was coming in from approximately the side of the vessel so putting more armor there was good sense. Now we use AS missiles which can have all kinds of fun flight profiles including top down attack, you gonna put 6 feet of composite reinforced armor on every fucking surface on your vessel? what the hell is the point just build more smaller vessels
>>27890845
You forgot:
>Pull out the stupid turrets and put VLS instead
Then you get something like the Kirov, except uselessly heavy as fuck.
>Durr, muh unsinkable ship
Everything can be destroyed. EVERYTHING.
>>27891880
Not my dick
>>27891687
supreme commander?
We should at least have one battleship. Because we can have at least one awesome if somewhat impractical thing to show off how awesome we are.
Also, I suppose you could also have helipads on it making it double as a helicopter carrier.
>>27891968
>Because we can have at least one awesome if somewhat impractical thing to show off how awesome we are.
Awesome *and* practical master race coming through. Brokedick, swerve.
>>27891687
>>swap rolled steel hull with composite tank armor
That armour is very specifically designed to withstand HEAT and APFSDS.
Does anyone on this planet have HEAT or APFSDS anti-shipping weapons?
>>27891893
:^)
>>27892151
sure why not
how else are you going to stop that 70 thousand tone 7300 knot/h monster?
>Radar, modern electronics
>Remove one turret for a helipad that runs ASW and can find targets bvr
>install phalanx and AA missiles as well as antimissile missiles
>try fitting more missiles including those for BVR ranges
>In visual range use guns
Bam
>>27891007
So much Wong, er.. wrong, with this post.
To begin, there were 2 injuries, no deaths.
The hole in the Chancellorsville was about 3X4 feet. That may be huge by Chink shill standards, but in the real world it's about the size of a car door.
The CIWS system wasn't even armed, that wasn't the system being tested. The drone operator lost control of the drone, which caused it to hit the superstructure of the ship.
Chinese carrier killer missiles haven't killed any carriers, and haven't even presented any credible evidence of being able to hit a moving target.
Why don't we put 18" guns on submarines while we're at it?
>>27890907
That is cold war era thinking. 9/11 could have been prevented if WTC was armored.
>>27892736
we Blue Submarine No.6 now
>>27892736
Why don't we put 18" guns on the F35? OH WAIT
UH, F35 FAGS BTFO'd
>>27892792
No idea what I'm looking at but I've got half a chubby
>>27890845
Battleships were obsolete before 1939 faggot-kun.
>>27891574
>Super Yamato Kai Ni reveal
>>27890845
Park one of Putin's Nuke-Torp's under it and
Same end result
>>27890863
yea
because we stopped having naval conflicts
Same reason they started building all these light ground vehicles, then in a conflict slap on armor until they are dangerously overweight.
>>27893563
Ground vehicles are no way comparable to ships.
>>27890845
On a Similar Note
How viable would a modernized I-400 Class be today. Jets with Vertical Take-off/ Landing would Really simplify things. It seems like it would be an amazing first strike platform
>>27893634
Horrible idea.
We've already had this thread.
>>27891836
Because it's cheaper & more effective to build big ships than to build a dozen small ships? Big nuclear powered ships save huge amounts of money in fuel too.
A big ship with lots of armor WILL greatly reduce the damage from an ASM hit. Not every ASM is a 7 ton mach 3+ ship killer. Batteries of 5" or 155mm cannon could easily intercept inbound missiles several miles out.
>>27892151
AShMs are giant HEAT warheads that ravel really fast, to combine KE and chemical energy.
>>27890845
reefs are nice.
>>27891574
what's the point? aside from a fever dream?
>>27893722
>Because it's cheaper & more effective to build big ships than to build a dozen small ships?
>>27893644
I wasn't in that thread, want to refresh me?
>>27893722
http://www.scribd.com/doc/267396243/Naval-Engineers-Journal-Volume-109-Issue-1-1997-J-F-McEachron-Subsonic-and-Supersonic-Antiship-Missiles-An-Effectiveness-and-Utility-Comparison
Related reading for interested fellows.
>>27890845
Get the Missouri
>Nuclear Powah
>12 Rail Gunz
>Upgrade Electronics as needed
>No queers allowed
>>27893832
Can't defend itself.
Aircraft cannot be recovered whilst submerged.
Large and loud.
Would not be able to field aircraft in meaningful numbers.
Nothing really gain compared to having missiles.
>>27893872
ah, Ok makes sense
Still a neat Idea, even if it is a terrible one
>>27891007
Why do you think the Navy is working on upgrading to laser CIWS?
>>27893780
Presumably the point would be having a carrier that could operate without a whole fleet of escorts.
Wasn't the main factor for battleships sinking in WWI & WWII the ammunition storage? They were basically all powder kegs waiting to burst. Take that out, let's say, by replacing all main batteries with railguns and you've already eliminated their main weakness.
>>27893634
I-400 class was already a terrible idea back in WWII, but the Japanese were desperate for a way to counter the US in any way possible.
>>27893959
I think people underestimate the effectiveness of AShMs. I mean, holy fuck. Imagine having to perform damage control on a vessel of that size.
Arsenal ship anybody?
>>27893563
But that is wrong, you stupid fucking idiot.
We stopped using battleships because advances in precision-guided weaponry and missiles made the entire concept of armored ships and using artillery as the primary naval weapon obsolete.
>>27893722
No, no it's not. A big ship with lots of armor will get people to develop armor-piercing warheads for ASMs (which will be much, much, much cheaper than the cost of building big armored ships) and it will get rekt by those.
And 5-6in guns are even more shit against a missile threat and mroe of a desperation act than CIWS is. If you have a dozen or more of 'em, you might be able to intercept one or two missiles with some certainty... while the other dozen in the salvo blow your big basket full of all your eggs into smithereens.
>>27893990
>by replacing all main batteries with railguns
Anything hit the capacitor banks for those and it's gonna be just as spectacular.
>>27894268
Kirov is basically an arsenal ship. The concept works but missiles are fucking expensive and complicate maintenance and readiness factors. You're still incredibly vulnerable to submarines and your one big boat can only be in one place at a time.
Many smaller ships can carry the same quantity of missiles while providing far greater flexibility and is the way to go if you have the money.
>>27894285
That doesn't make any sense
ASM that could defeat the armor on battleships didn't arrive until the 80's, the US doesn't even have any yet.
The battleship played important roles in korea/vietnam/desert storm.
Now that cannons that fire guided, fin stabilized rounds for cheap is possible.
Artillery is bound to become more useful again.
>>27894320
You need surface ships anyways, so the only actual cost of the battleship is adding 2 nuclear reactors, and another 50,000+ tons of steel/composites/ceramic/etc
Why is this battleship somehow more threatened by ASM's than destroyers/cruisers?
>And 5-6in guns are even more shit against a missile threat
If you were to produce 5-6guns with a "burst fire" ability, firing 5-10 rounds rapidly, that would be extremely useful versus ASM's
>>27894403
You got any sources for those hot opinions?
And alright, Mr. Smartypants.
If this is such a great idea how come literally nobody has created such a thing?
>>27894268
M-Metal Gear?
>>27894331
>>27893841
>>27893990
>tiniest hit to superconducting capacitor banks
>coolant rupture
>WHOOOOOOOOSSSSSSHHHH
>liquid helium quenches, dropping the mean temperature throughout the entire ship below 0c.
>>27894432
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXW02XmBGQw#t=18s
>>27894285
That's wrong.
The thing that removed battleships were cost, nukes and airpower.
Aircraft carriers cost but they can carry airplanes which has alot of range and can carry nukes. It's also a boat so it can move anywhere on the great ocean.
>>27894424
Because the US is the only country with a meaningful navy? And they clearly do not want it, for whatever reason.
>>27891007
its been a while since i've seen an actual chicom retard on /k/.
>>27894403
>ASM that could defeat the armor on battleships didn't arrive until the 80's, the US doesn't even have any yet.
Actually they still don't exist. Simply because there isn't a target for them considering all ship construction in modern times focuses on Active Defense vs Passive. Exocets, harpoons, Oniks fly slower, have more mass, more HE filler but lack penetrators for use against heavy armor.
Of course it "shouldn't" take much to modify existing designs either via warhead type or adding a penetrator variant that could easily slice through the armor.
>Now that cannons that fire guided, fin stabilized rounds for cheap is possible. Artillery is bound to become more useful again.
This was never the real issue even to begin with. The problem goes back to pretty much no matter HOW good your artillery gets, it is still outclassed and out ranged by Missile munitions. So why would you float a massive target (even if it can take hits) that effectively has less firepower than a ship 1/5th is displacement. Then if you go into "well it can be upgraded with more active defense systems/offensive VLS". Well good you now went right around the problem and used a massively expensive asset instead of simply building another that already retains all those upgrades for cheaper.
>>27894473
>Because the US is the only country with a meaningful navy?
Opinion discarded.
Yeah, you know why it isn't a thing?
Because it is fucking retarded.
>>27892151
what we do have is 7 ton missiles travelling at three times the speed of sound with 750kg warheads.
is that good enough for you?
>>27894512
doesn't stop it being true though
>>27894509
But a modern armored warship wouldn't be armored on the outer skin, it would be heavily armored internally, to protect key components/personnel/limit blast damage from hits.
>it is still outclassed and out ranged by Missile munitions.
But it's also massively cheaper, and in a real shooting war, cost is a relevant thing.
The US only has so many tomahawks, only has so many fighters able to do missions, etc
So if you have multiple battleships capable of hitting targets within 50-100 km of shore, that frees up stealth bombers to hit other targets.
I don't see how this battleship would be massively more expensive than an AEGIS cruiser either.
>>27894543
m8
you are not the soviet union
>>27893722
>Because it's cheaper & more effective to build big ships than to build a dozen small ships?
is it? please explain the life cycle and crew costs and survivability please.
>A big ship with lots of armor WILL greatly reduce the damage from an ASM hit.
not enough to justify the cost it won't.
>Not every ASM is a 7 ton mach 3+ ship killer.
by the time you've finished building your silly fucking ship the will be. faster and cheaper to produce than your dumbfuck cockrod.
also pretty easy to retrofit existing warheads too.
>Batteries of 5" or 155mm cannon could easily intercept inbound missiles several miles out.
holy fuck i lol'd
your 155 can slew to track a 0.9mach moving target can it? what about 3mach?
>>27894570
50-100km
If you're hitting things that far inland, you aren't using a BB to do so, you are using a guided missile cruiser
>>27894403
>ASM that could defeat the armor on battleships didn't arrive until the 80's
Try 1943.
People don't put armor-piercing warheads on ASMs anymore because there's no need for it. But if that need materialises agian, developing and building them again would be piss-easy - the warhead is just about the least complicated and most easily replaced part of the missile.
>The battleship played important roles in korea/vietnam/desert storm.
In the delusions of BB fanboys only. Absolutely nothing battleships did in any of these had any real signifcance towards the outcome of the war and nothing they did was something that couldn't have been accomplished by other plattforms just as well, if not better.
And no, even guided cannon rounds have nowhere near the precision, range or firepwoer you can pack into missiles.
>You need surface ships anyways, so the only actual cost of the battleship is adding 2 nuclear reactors, and another 50,000+ tons of steel/composites/ceramic/etc
In other words, making it easily three to four times as expensive as a DDG without any relevant capabilities over one.
>Why is this battleship somehow more threatened by ASM's than destroyers/cruisers?
Because it is a far bigger, more expensive target. That means less money for escorts and less capability to replace lsot ships. It oes not do anything that smaller ships cannot do more efficiently.
>If you were to produce 5-6guns with a "burst fire" ability, firing 5-10 rounds rapidly, that would be extremely useful versus ASM's
No, no it would not be. Modern naval 5-inchers are fully automatic with rates of fire of 20+ shells a minute and they're still shittier at missile defense than even CIWS.
>>27894465
Guided weapons, motherfucker. The real end of the battleship was 9/9/43 when two of pic related blew RM Roma in half. Armoring against PGMs is a losing battle.
>>27894403
>so the only actual cost of the battleship is adding 2 nuclear reactors, and another 50,000+ tons of steel/composites/ceramic/etc
>only
what the fuck am i reading
also
>where did all my internal volume go
>>27894570
>I don't see how this battleship would be massively more expensive than an AEGIS cruiser either.
Sure but you haven't given proof on how it would be cheaper. You just keep saying that in your opinion it would be.
>>27894570
>massively cheaper
>multiple battleships
we are in crazy land
>you are not the soviet union
just shut the fuck up you retard
>>27894385
Points well made. But don't carriers kind of take that to a new level as well? Whats more expensive: A Gerald R. Ford class with F-35s, EA-18Gs, X-47, and the works or a ship that carries just as many missiles as all those planes without the plane?
Also, pic related, what do you think of this?
>Let's take a landing ship's hull and use it for a Arsenal ship!
Unintelligent, says I.
>>27894675
>a ship that carries just as many missiles as all those planes without the plane?
Well clearly the carrier is cheaper.
>>27894585
No, you would be using a modern gun and modern ammunition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M982_Excalibur
>>27894587
80+ year old ships destroyed because these bombs hit munition magazines
How is that any different from modern ships? Except these modern ships have no armor, so such a hit kills everyone onboard.
A modern battleship would be designed to reduce that risk.
>Because it is a far bigger, more expensive target.
Except the cost of modern ships have almost nothing to do with their size or tonnage.
A modern battleship doesn't need to be designed as a "jack of all trades" 10 billion dollar boondoggle.
>nothing they did was something that couldn't have been accomplished by other plattforms just as well, if not better.
Like what platform? Replace 10,000 dollar shells with 2 million dollar missiles fired from 100 million dollar aircraft? All of our recent war experience shows that you NEED to have armor, you NEED to be able to take hits.
>>27894705
>Except the cost of modern ships have almost nothing to do with their size or tonnage.
Source?
>>27894705
>Except the cost of modern ships have almost nothing to do with their size or tonnage.
http://pbskids.org/arthur/games/factsopinions/index.html
>>27894729
steel is 170 dollars per ton
>>27894746
>implying steel is the only cost
You realise that there's different types of steel, right?
Commodity steel, is not shipbuilding steel.
>>27894746
Good thing ships are made out of undifferentiated bulk steel, eh.
>>27894432
Don't forget the horrifying energies that would be unleashed. Any crew near the breached capacitor would be reduced to silhouettes flash-burned into the walls.
>>27894675
Depends entirely on how much you want to actually use it. Kirov is cheap as hell if you never launch any of the missiles and just replace the boosters every twenty years.
If you want to play world police and put a dozen pgms into a dozen huts every day for years on end, that carrier is gonna be a whole lot cheaper to rearm. Really both navies have gone with the options that make more sense for themselves.
>>27894705
>All of our recent war experience shows that you NEED to have armor, you NEED to be able to take hits.
Yeah all 0 of our ships sunk in combat since 1945 would still be floating if only they had more armor.
The principles of land warfare do not directly apply to naval warfare.
>>27894705
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M982_Excalibur
if you're going to link me to wikipedia atleast read the fucking article you link
> Excalibur has a range of approximately 40 to 57 kilometres
>>27894705
If you want your ship to do only one thing well, your ship does not need to be big.
If the one thing you want your ship to do is get hit with missiles and not sink, you've got the wrong idea of how to win a fight. The right idea is to not get hit.
>>27894705
you are literally debating points which have already come up and been dismissed by far more numerous and intelligent people as being
>completely wasting our time and resources on retarded ventures
but by all means continue arm chair admiral'ing with your extensive wikipedia knowledge base
>>27894705
>No, you would be using a modern gun and modern ammunition
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M982_Excalibur
So you want to replaced a 16" gun that has a range of 25 miles.... with a 6" gun with a range of 25 miles.... HUZZAH FOR MODERN!
>How is that any different from modern ships? Except these modern ships have no armor, so such a hit kills everyone onboard
Because Damage Control and ship layout has changed fairly drastically in the last century believe it or not. There's a reason the Forrestal was so bad, a reason the Sheffield went down and is the reason the Stark did NOT go down from the same missile. Couple this with massive changes of SOP for ship management/day to day routine (IE Dogging of hatche's, securing Vent when needed, not storing exposed powder near flammable area's). Small things that make a ship much more survivable when shit does go wrong.
>All of our recent war experience shows that you NEED to have armor, you NEED to be able to take hits.
Oh really? What experience is that? What ships have we lost due to lack of armor? Did the Iraqi Navy somehow attack us and no one knew about? Did Russia surprise hit us with a Shipwreck launch? Oh wait your just spouting bullshit that has no grounded argument in reality.
>Like what platform? Replace 10,000 dollar shells with 2 million dollar missiles fired from 100 million dollar aircraft?
Except the last estimated monetary amount to make an Iowa just SEA WORTHY again was 90+ Million. Now i'm going to assume your instead suggesting build a new Battleship from scratch to counter this, cool so instead we will now spend BILLIONS on a single asset that is less mission effective than again, a single ship at 1/5th its displacement.
>>27890845
http://www.combatreform.org/battleships.htm
>>27894851
>http://www.combatreform.org/battleships.htm
>A third world country launched a nuclear-tipped missile at its neighbor; Pakistan's supposedly "moderate" Islamic ruling council without warning, struck at Indian troop concentrations to stop what was thought to be an impending invasion. India then retaliated with its own nuclear weapons, killing millions of Muslims and creating a call to arms throughout the world to exterminate India.
The U.S. rushed an aircraft carrier battle group to the scene. However, thousands of miles >Communist China began massing troops adjacent to the straits of Taiwan after that country declared their independence. Another CBG was sent towards Taiwan but with strict orders not to enter the confined waters of the straits. Satellite imagery flashed into the targeting screens of the Chinese Strategic Missile force headquarters and buttons were pushed. Back at Washington D.C. phones rang of the reported ballistic missiles being launched. "Would China start nuclear war over Taiwan? All we did was move a carrier group towards it. The radar screens answered our questions. The Chinese missile arcs were coming down far closer than the continental U.S. (CONUS). Everyone drew a sigh of relief. A computer screen operator burst our euphoria bubble; "Sir the Chinese missiles are coming down on our aircraft carriers." The senior watch commander said to alert them. "Its too late sir, they have already struck, there were too many for our missiles to stop them. The Nimitz vanished from our screens 3 minutes ago, the Carl Vinson is on fire and abandoning ship."
>nuclear reactor(s)
>replace main guns with railguns
>replace all AA gun emplacement with CIWS, both guns and missile, and active protection systems errwhere
>ERA tiles all over, over ceramic composite armor over the original steel armor
>replace 15.5 cm/60 turrets with missile launchers (SAM, ABM, big fuckoff rusky AShM)
>could have a missile battery in front of the first turret
>and behind the third, or you could put a helipad there
People who don't get a hard dick when reading this must be gay.
>>27894880
Or just not retarded and perhaps familiar with the giant clusterfuck that resulted from trying to do this shit with the Iowa.
>>27894874
whoever wrote this fanfic is beyond retarded
>>27892151
Current American torpedos use shaped charges and it's likely that everyone else except maybe the Mexican Navy does too.
>>27894895
>Or just not retarded and perhaps familiar with the giant clusterfuck that resulted from trying to do this shit with the Iowa
Not the yamato lover but explain?
>>27894880
>Fire the main guns
>Recoil breaks half your missiles
>ERA and ceramics do nothing against antiship ordnance that is orders of magnitude larger than tank shells
>Get sunk by one modern torpedo from SSN
>>27894899
Friend you do not even know the half of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwHqLtK_TpY
>>27894911
please do not inform me of the other half.... please
>>27894908
The exact same issues with Iowa will exist with Yamato. Read the thread.
>>27894899
combatreform.org is home to the same genius who brought us the Gavin.
http://www.combatreform.org/lavdanger2.htm
It also has a godawful mid-90s layout.
>>27894908
Costs a gorillion dollars for bare minimum refit. Old ass hull and old ass electronics that no one knows how to use or fix. Every mechanical thing breaking because its at five times its design life and no spare parts exist. Fire the guns and the vibrations fuck up the missiles. Use old ass powder in the guns without following proper procedure because everyone who learned the proper procedure is retired, turret blows up, 47 dead.
If you really want a battleshit, build a new one and let the floating museums stay as they are.
>>27894918
>please do not inform me of the other half.... please
http://www.combatreform.org/STRATEGICMANEUVER/index.htm
>>27894911
>>Fire the main guns
>>Recoil breaks half your missiles
More like fire the main guns and rek cunt and have the missiles be fine.
>>ERA and ceramics do nothing against antiship ordnance that is orders of magnitude larger than tank shells
It'll do nothing except shrek the ordinances and destroy its ability to even scratch the ceramic armour underneath, that's if IF it gets past the stupendous amount of CIWS installed which it won't
>>Get sunk by one modern torpedo from SSN
The whole thing is so heavy and rigid (like my cock when entering ur mom lmao) that torpedoes are not debilitating. But wait, there active protection systems under the waterline that fuck up torpedoes before they can get near.
Me: 1
You: 0
>>27894874
16" Scramjet shells with a range of 400 nautical miles.
>>27894802
Assuming you won't get hit, means that lots of people will die when you DO get hit
It also means you can't go within 100+ miles of enemy shoreline
It's a joke to try to suggest that a battleship will be sunk by ASM's but somehow destroyers/cruisers won't. At the very least, the battleship can fill the same role as Ticonderogas
What amphibious operations has the US done since WW2 either?
Not every war will involve 6+ months of bombing until the enemy surrenders, without needing to actually go & fight them.
>>27894798
larger caliber naval guns would obv go further.
>>27890863
Aviation and nukes? Plz.
>>27890845
>satellite finds where is the ship
>a submarine 200 miles away uses a computer to predict the position and send 90 ballistic missiles there
The end.
>>27894970
A fleet of smaller vessels provides better radar and SAM coverage and can not be taken out by a single good hit. Distributed assets are always better than putting all your capability in one piece of equipment.
Ticonderogas fill the role of Ticonderogas just fucking fine and don't need to displace 50,000 tons to do it.
Who the fuck you gonna need an amphibious invasion against? We have two kinds of enemies: World powers with nuclear weapons and limpdick shitholes with near-zero modern capability. Against the first kind the battleship is a useless floating target and against the second kind it is massive overkill and far more expensive than other systems for the same job.
>>27894970
Armor is less effective at preventing casualties than active defense. Instead of weighing your ship down with useless metal, you tool up with interceptors, radar, and ECM and you move fast enough that the other fucker doesn't know where you are to hit you.
>>27894958
This is the dream Reagan had when he reactivated Iowa. The reality turned out to be pretty fucking different.
Keep dreaming.
>>27894880
I see you my nigga.
>>27895082
name?
>>27895103
Muv Luv
>>27894705
>A modern battleship would be designed to reduce that risk.
No, no it wouldn't. Because you cannot design it to reduce that risk against modern weaponry to any significant degree without sacrificing so much capability in other places as to make the ship functionally useless.
>Except the cost of modern ships have almost nothing to do with their size or tonnage.
Yes it does, you clueless motherfucker. Even beyond basic materiel cost, larger crew requirements, higher logistics demands etc., it additionally puts huge costs on the kind of infrastructure you need to build, maintain and repair such ships.
Our "recent war experience" was asymetric warfare against outmatched opponents. Against such, armoring stuff makes sense because they only have access to limited amounts of firepower and outdated weaponry - and even second-string revolutionaries and the like nowadays increasingly get their hands on modern guided wepaons that make a mockery of most defense system and practical amounts of armor. Against any opponent with access to up-to-date weaponry, no amount of armor is going to save your ass if you get hit. Firepower has decisively won the race against armor, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO NAVAL WARFARE.
As for your disdain for "jack of all trades", modenr tehcnology has in many fields come to the point where said jack of all trades is the equal of a specialist in all fields for a negligible cost increase.
>>27894851
Fuck off, Sparky.
>>27894899
It's Sparky, the ame guy that brought us such hit ideas like calling the M113 Gavin and using it to replace every other vehicle in the US Army's motor pool. Also, to give it wings and Sidewinder missiles so it could be used as an airmobile IFV. No, I'm not joking.
>>27895174
MIGS BEWARE
I
G
S
B
E
W
A
R
E
>>27895037
It's not an either/or situation
If you are nuclear powered, you can have both.
And yes armor will very much prevent casualties from anti-ship missiles or torpedos
Every single potential enemy the US has is overseas
The question is what enemy WON'T an amphibious landing capability be useful against. Not every enemy will have friendly neighboring countries that allow us to build up troops in for a year before invading.
At the very least it'll be a big ship, that can carry a lot of missiles/ordinance, and be the flagship of the fleet.
>>27895137
>larger crew requirements, higher logistics demands
Cargo ships manage with 30 crewmen, so obviously sheer size alone does not imply vastly greater costs.
>As for your disdain for "jack of all trades",
I don't have a disdain for jack of all trades. However needing to perform 1000 different missions is what causes ballooning costs on them, which then leads to them not being able to come within 100 miles of enemy shoreline.
By taking existing technologies, modifying them, and applying them to a modern battleship, you could cost effectively produce a large surface ship.
No existing anti-ship missiles are going to penetrate 1+ feet of steel armor. Even if it does, compartmentalization & internal armor will massively reduce the damage of a 1000lb warhead detonating inside a ship.
Very simple way to test the effectiveness of armor, take the existing iowa's, tow them out to sea, and use them for target practice.
>>27894705
>A modern battleship would be designed to reduce that risk.
But anon, modern battleships *are* designed to reduce that risk.
It just turns out that by the time you're done reducing that risk using modern techniques, your battleship starts looking a lot like a supercarrier or an Aegis destroyer.
The Arleigh Burke is the logical progression of the battleship into the modern age.
>>27894908
The Iowa odernisations were a clsuterfuck all around. Using hte guns caused enough vibrations to brick many of the electronic systems, you couldn't fit stuff in many places without having to basically rip apart the whole ship and re-wire all the electrics and even when they managed to put the upgrades in palce, the result was that the hodgepodge of old and new caused constant mechanical and electric problems that drove the engineering crew halfway insane. Like, those guys consumed on average half again as much coffee as engineering crews on other Navy ships jsut to cope.
And then they of course managed to blow up the #2 turret and almost take the entire ship with it.
>>27895217
We used plenty of Japanese battleships as demonstrators for what happens when armor piercing bombs and torpedoes hit things. They sink.
If your ship gets hit by a big fuckoff missile it is going to be combat ineffective, even if it manages not to sink or explode. A group of 6 DDGs takes at least 6 hits to render ineffective. A single large ship only takes one.
There is nothing that a BBG can do that a pair of CGs cannot for the same lifecycle cost. Having more ships gives you better readiness percentages and operational flexibility. Having bigger ships gives you nothing.
>>27894970
Assuming that armor can save you when it actually can't means tjhat lots more people will die when you DO ge thit on your oversized, overcrewed, underdefended, underperforming shitbucket.
The real joke here is pretending that a batlteship has any more survivability agianst modenr weaponry than a crusier or destroyer- at which point the DDG win becuase it's smaller, cheaper and hence more disposable *and* can be easier used en masse *and* thus gain de facto superior survivabiltiy through pooling active defenses.
The role of the Ticos doesn't exist anymore, Burkes and assorted DDGs can fill it. The trend if at all is even more going towards smaller ships as firepower and precision further outpace passive defense.
Any enemy we can't just bomb for 6+ month is also an enemy against whom getting your glorious gunship within gun range of his coastline will see it die uselessly in short order.
>>27894069
>Imagine having to perform damage control on a vessel of that size.
It would be a lot easier than on smaller ships. You'll have a lot more resources at hand, a fuckton more repair parties to share the workload, reserve buoyancy out the ass, compartmentation for days, and system redundancy like you wouldn't believe.
I think you overestimate the effectiveness of AShMs. Even the steroidal monsters fielded by Russia and China aren't magical one-shot ship killers.
>>27895217
No existing anti-ship missiles are going to penetrate 1+ feet of steel armor.
>SS-N-19 Shipwreck
>Warhead: 750 kg HE or 500 kt fission-fusion thermonuclear weapon
Good luck w/ that
Not like it'd be hard to replace the HE with a 500kg shaped charge and penetrator to get through as much steel as you want conventionally. Bunker busters aren't exactly a new idea.
>>27895327
Iron fucking dumb bombs and unguided torpedoes sank ships with 7" deck armor and 14" belts 70 fucking years ago. Armor will not protect you from modern ordnance.
Displacement:
129,000 ton
Length:
862 ft 10 in
Beam: 127 ft 7 in)
Draught:
34 ft 1 in
Propulsion:
2 x A1B
Speed:
30 knots
Endurance:
Unlimited
Complement:
785
Sensors and Processing Systems:
AN/SPY-1A/B
AN/SPS-49
AN/SPG-62
AN/SPS-73
AN/SPQ-9
AN/SLQ-32
AN/SQQ-89(V)1/3 - A(V)15
AN/SQS-53B/C/D
AN/SQR-19 TACTAS,
AN/SQR-19B ITASS
AN/SQQ-28
Main Armament:
20 × BAE Rail Guns - (5×4)
Secondary Armaments:
30 × 155 mm/62 caliber Advanced Gun System - LRAP only
30 × 127mm/62-caliber Mk. 45 Mod 3 DP Guns
50 × 113/55-caliber Mk. 8 DP Guns
50 x 76mm Oto Melara VULCANO DP Guns
CIWS:
140 x 40x364mmR Oto Malera/Brea Fast Forty
160 x 30x173mm Goalkeeper
500 x SeaRAM
VLS:
5 × 61 cell Mk 41 vertical launch systems containing
610 × mix of:
RIM-66M-5 Standard SM-2MR Block IIIB
RIM-156A SM-2ER Block IV
RIM-161 SM-3
RIM-162A ESSM
RIM-174A Standard ERAM
BGM-109 Tomahawk
RUM-139A VL-ASROC
AShM:
50 x RGM-84 Harpoon NG (5x10)
50 x BrahMOS NG (5x10)
ASh/AP:
100 x Mk 38 Mod 3
100 x M3M
1/2
>>27895217
>cargo ships
Are you seriously trying to compare crewrequirements of cargo ships with the crew requirements of warhips? God damn, you're one fucking idiot.
No, dipshit, sheer size DOES imply costs. it implies materiel cost. It implies personnel costs. It implies maintenance costs. It implies infrastructure costs.
>By taking existing technologies, modifying them, and applying them to a modern battleship, you could cost effectively produce a large surface ship.
No, no you couldn't. Let alone one that wouldn't be entirely useless and superflous in any kind of modern naval combat and do something that smaller ships couldn't do better and cheaper.
>No existing anti-ship missiles are going to penetrate 1+ feet of steel armor.
Several existing ones are and designing one to do it for any existing ASM would be orders of magnitude cheaper than building your white elephant. Also, you're not getting a solid foot of armor all around without sacrificing so much tonnage as to make the ship horribly handicapped in all other regards.
>Even if it does, compartmentalization & internal armor will massively reduce the damage of a 1000lb warhead detonating inside a ship.
No, no it will not to any useful degree. One hit means mlnths in repairs, two or three means your battleship is either sunk or a floating wreck damaged to a degree that scrapping becomes the only economical alternative.
>Very simple way to test the effectiveness of armor, take the existing iowa's, tow them out to sea, and use them for target practice.
One bunker-buster PGM, instant magazine detonation. Fuckin' Germans already answered the question of PGM vs battleship 72 years ago.
>>27895395
>USS Freudian Nightmare
What do you even do with it?
>>27895395
Armor:
Main turrets: 540mm Composite/DU Mesh sides @ 60 degree side angles, 345mm roof @ 55 degree, 620mm frontal plate @ 35 degrees Barbettes: 620mm Composite/DU mesh.
Secondary Armament Housings: 275mm Composite/DU Mesh Sides @ 63 degrees. Roof: 145mm @ 47 degrees. Front Plate: 300mm @ 44 degrees.
Tertiary VLS Housings: Roofs: 130mm Composite @ 45 degrees.
Outer Belt: 415mm Composite/Tungsten Mesh inclined @ 28 degrees
Mid: 52mm Secondary DU Plates @ 32 degrees
Inner Belt: 285mm RHa/Composite/Tungsten/DU Mesh @ 85 degrees
Forward/Superstructure armored deck: 270mm RHa/Composite/DU Mesh @ 72 degrees (85% coverage)
Mid Layer: 50mm Secondary DU Plates
Inner Layer: 150mm RHa/Composite/Tungsten Mesh
Superstructure: 150mm Composite/DU Mesh/Spall Liner all around. 200mm Roof.
Aft Deck/Hangars/Reactor:
Outer: 350mm Composite/DU Mesh @ 84 degrees (12.5% coverage
Mid: 75mm Secondary DU Plates/125mm Lead Plating @ 45 degrees
Inner: 150mm RHa/Composite @ 45 degrees
Aircraft:
10 - F-35B
10 - F-35C
10 - MH-60R
5 - EA-2D
>>27895412
Destroy everything.
>>27895283
>There is nothing that a BBG can do that a pair of CGs cannot for the same lifecycle cost.
Except, why would the one role BBG cost as much as 2 Tico's?
I'm sure you could build one for the same cost or maybe a bit more.
How are you going to ever do any amphibious operations if none of your ships can even come within line of site of the shore?
Obviously a modern battleship will not be for ship to ship combat. Though if it had the same equipment as a tico/burke, it would be JUST as good in that role, if not substantially better due to having far more room.
>>27895327
No, no it is you who massively underestimates the effectiveness of modern guided weaponry.
Fucking first-gen guided weapons blew some of the most modern battleships of the day the fuck out even back in WWII. And that was at a time where PGMs were MCLOS weapons that required the plane to fly slow and level over the target while the bombadeer steered the weapon on its way down with a freakin joystick.
>>27895395
>>27895426
>all this completely idiotic and delusional wishful thinking
Physics weep upon your retardiation.
You couldn't even cram a single percent of all that shit into the displacement and measurement figures you are giving.
The only thing you'd do with that pipedream is write it down, wrap some weed in it and smoke it.
>>27895427
>Except, why would the one role BBG cost as much as 2 Tico's?
Because shipbuilding and operating costs do not scale linearly with displacement. Smaller ships in larger quantity are cheaper than bigger ships. It's why we made 175 Fletcher DDs, 14 Baltimore CAs, and only 4 Iowas.
>How are you going to ever do any amphibious operations if none of your ships can even come within line of site of the shore?
You aren't storming that beach anyway then son. Age of Imperialism is over, sorry. No ship you build is going to give you the capability to invade mainland China.
>Obviously a modern battleship will not be for ship to ship combat.
So what then? Shore bombardment? Consider the CVN which can sit twice as far off shore and hit targets twice as far inland with greater precision. Or the LHA which offers the cheaper version of the same capability. There is no niche for an offshore gun platform to fill.
>>27895510
It was not meant to be realistic in anyway and I was being sardonic. People actually believe that shit could exist.
>>27895512
Actually larger ships are cheaper than many smaller ships. That's always been the case.
However, many smaller ships are far more flexible and hence more capable.
>>27895512
>Smaller ships in larger quantity are cheaper than bigger ships.
If this is true, why do we build super carriers?
>Consider the CVN which can sit twice as far off shore and hit targets twice as far inland with greater precision.
This would not REPLACE the CVN, it would augment it.
Since the majority of the displacement will be armor, which requires essentially no maintainence or manpower, why would the costs be substantially greater than a Tico?
>mainland China.
What about an occupied korea, or an occupied taiwan?
Hell, what if the US wanted to regime change Cuba.
>>27895752
>If this is true, why do we build super carriers?
To have credible force projection you need enough aircraft to deliver strikes while maintaining defensive CAP and dealing with maintenance and rotational downtime. This puts a minimum limit on the size of a useful carrier.
>The majority of the displacement will be armor
You need twice as many reactors and twice as many turbines and twice as many screws working twice as hard as compared to a carrier of similar size, because you weigh twice as much and you can't augment the CVN if you can't make 40 knots to even fucking keep up with it.
You also need a carrier+ sized drydock for five years to build the fucker and then again for every refit and that shit ain't free.
So yes, two gas engined boats that displace significantly less combined while carrying the same missiles and radars are going to be cheaper to build and cheaper to operate.
>What about an occupied korea, or an occupied taiwan?
>Hell, what if the US wanted to regime change Cuba
You use standoff weapons to suppress the defenses and rely on active ECM, interception, and CIWS to shoot down anything launched your way. A battleship with guns gives you nothing here because land-based missiles and aircraft massively outrange it.
Your strategic plan cannot be to just sail your ship into range of the enemy and hope you can just tank the hits. It does not matter what ship you are using or how much armor you have. You need to either actively ensure local air superiority over your fleet or you need to move somewhere else. Armor is dead weight.
Even the Soviets realized this. The Kirov class is the largest modern surface combatant and the closest thing to a 21st century battleship in the world. It is covered in the best active defenses available from ECM to radar to IR to CIWS guns to missile interceptors. It has 3" plating on the reactor compartment and no other armor to speak of. The idea is to not get hit.
>>27895752
We build supercarriers because they are the smallest you can get with a carrier while still being able to cram in the capacity to run the full spectrum of naval airpower including supporting plattforms like tankers and AWACs.
They're built the smallest you can build them to fill their role.
>This would not REPLACE the CVN, it would augment it.
...it wouldn't do anything existing palttforms can't do more efficiently already. It doesn't augment shit except the bottom line of a few shipyards.
>Since the majority of the displacement will be armor, which requires essentially no maintainence or manpower
...because mroe tonnage doesn't irectly translate into increase wear and tear throughout the propulsion systems and assorted sections, right?
Also, majority displacement will be armor? Yeah, strike comparing that to a Burke or Tico, it will be far less capable in all regards compared to either of these. Shit firepower, shit sensor and shit defense capability against any real threat. All to lug along a huge big mass of metal that offers no real protection against modern munitions anyway
>>27895877
>You need twice as many reactors and twice as many turbines and twice as many screws working twice as hard as compared to a carrier of similar size, because you weigh twice as much
The battleship anon is retarded but damn, you are trying your best to outretard him.
>>27894675
>a ship that carries just as many missiles as all those planes without the plane?
The ability to attack multiple targets from multiple vectors simultaneously more than offsets any advantages your battlewagon may bring to the table. One known source of attack is much easier to defend against than a whole air wing coming from all over the compass.
Also, if you shoot down one plane you haven't stopped the strike. If you sink a battleship, you've definitely stopped whatever it was doing. One torpedo from a biplane was all it took to cripple the Bismarck. Then it was just a matter of pounding it into junk.
There are a whole bunch of reasons why nobody builds or uses battleships anymore.
>>27896002
>One torpedo from a biplane was all it took to cripple the Bismarck. Then it was just a matter of pounding it into junk.
What kind of fucked up logic is this? One bomb was all it took to sink the Akagi. Three bombs sank the Kaga. One torpedo sank the Lexington. I guess that's why no one uses carriers today.
>>27896049
Carriers were never made to take hits.
Battleships were, and now they can't.
>>27895877
In the cold war, the assumption was about nuke armed missiles
So no armor is going to defend against a nuke hit(though armor would indeed help vs close range nuke detonations)
>You need twice as many reactors and twice as many turbines and twice as many screws working twice as hard as compared to a carrier of similar size,
que? You still only need 2, because its a redundancy thing, not a limited amount of power thing.
For a battleship like this, you could get away with 1 nuke plant, and just have sufficient power stored in batteries to drive it out of harms way.
>Your strategic plan cannot be to just sail your ship into range of the enemy and hope you can just tank the hits.
Eventually, at SOME point in the war, you do need to move closer.
You need to be able to take some hits.
Bombing from carriers or missile destroyers is a very costly endeavor. Sure the military doesn't give a shit about cost effectiveness, but in a real shooting war, you start to run out of munitions
>>27896068
battleships haven't been made for 80 years
So how do you know what they could or could not take?
>>27896049
No, it's why not getting hit has become the only real defense left for warships.
>>27896112
>You need to be able to take some hits.
You can repeat that as many times as you want, the fact is that there is no realistic way to be able to take hits without losing the ship, no matter how much armor you pile on. That is the undeniable fact. Which leaves only one valid approach: Build small, build cheap and mass up to overlap your active defenses, then accept losses from whatever gets through.
Building big and armored ships will not give you any appreciable amount of extra survivability and will in fact dilute both your avaiable active defense and your capability to take losses and carry on. It is not merely useless, it is actively detrimental.
>Bombing from carriers or missile destroyers is a very costly endeavor.
It's orders of magnitude less costly than losing ships.
>So how do you know what they could or could not take?
Simple: There has been no applicable menaingful advance in armor technology for warships in those same 80 years.
Let's return the question: Why do you assume agaisnt all known facts that a modern battleship would be magically more resilient against modern munitions than WWII battleships were agianst WWII munitions despite the fact that firepower has outpaced armor to a massive degree in their technological race since then?
>>27896112
>For a battleship like this, you could get away with 1 nuke plant, and just have sufficient power stored in batteries to drive it out of harms way.
Really not at all how warship propulsion works. Either way you need more power to move your heavy ship at the same speed as a lighter one on a sustained cruise.
>Eventually, at SOME point in the war, you do need to move closer.
>You need to be able to take some hits.
Second statement does not logically follow from the first.
>So how do you know what they could or could not take?
Steel isn't a magical mystery material. Bunker busting pgms that can wreck shit through several feet of any material you care to use exist and have existed for some time. If your ship gets directly hit from above by a ballistic missile, your ship is dead, no matter how thick you make the deck. The only way to ensure your survival is to not get hit. Armor doesn't help you avoid getting hit.
>>27896114
If that's your point, then you picked the worst fucking example to illustrate it.
AND HERE COMES A GIANT MISSILE SWARM
>>27896002
ok?
It's not a question of "build battleships, or build carrier groups"
It's a question of "is X amount of money to build modern battleships a worthy investment/addition to the fleet"
The german/japanese fleets were hugely outnumbered & outgunned, so comparing their battleships being attacked by 20 carriers and sunk is hardly an example of battleships being bad.
>>27896187
>It's a question of "is X amount of money to build modern battleships a worthy investment/addition to the fleet"
And the answer is pretty clearly no, unless by battleship you mean 'big-ass missile barge like the Kirov'
Every dollar spent on armor beyond basic splinter protection is a dollar wasted.
>>27896112
>battleships haven't been made for 80 years
Theres reasons for this you know, the time of the battleship has been over for a long time.
Yes parking a BB off the coasts of 3rd world countries does give me a massive freedom erection, the job can be done much more efficiently by smaller ships (which we do use now). But when you start talking about modern military powers fighting each other the benefits a Battleship offers become staggeringly less beneficial than they were when you were dumping HE on 3rd world darkies.
>>27896187
Then again we are back to the RM Roma and its 6.4" armored deck with two Fritz X sized holes in it.
>>27896167
>the fact is that there is no realistic way to be able to take hits without losing the ship, no matter how much armor you pile on. That is the undeniable fact
This is garbage
Not every missile is a 7 ton, 30 foot long super sonic ship killer
The idea, is that you have a ship capable of going within 100 miles of shore.
Capable of being RISKED.
If the battleship can bombard shore targets, while the carriers hit targets further inland, that's adding to the overall capability of the fleet.
And finally, when the time comes to do an amphibious landing, you have a battleship who can drive right up into the enemy port/shore, and fire directly at enemy targets.
>>27896244
And the Roma would have been fine if her munitions didn't blow up
Thats a design issue.
>>27896279
>Not every missile is a 7 ton, 30 foot long super sonic ship killer
THEN WHY ARE THEY FIRING IT AT YOUR BATTLESHIP YOU FUCK STAIN
>>27896279
>This is garbage
>Not every missile is a 7 ton, 30 foot long super sonic ship killer
>The idea, is that you have a ship capable of going within 100 miles of shore.
EXCEPT THAT SOME MISSILES FUCKING ARE 7-TON HYPERSONIC SHIP KILLERS
>>27896279
Yes, you can cruise right in there as long as the enemy doesn't shoot any of their GOOD missiles at you.
If your ship is nuclear powered, how do you clean up when it sinks and links radioactive material?
I don't want to eat radioactive fish.
>>27896296
>>27896290
>>27896307
And how many countries have those missiles?
Russia.... and noone else?
They are big as hell, so not as easy to hide while being easier to intercept. A bigger ship allows you to mount more CIWS, increasing chances of interception. the greater armor will ALWAYS reduce the damage from the hit, as well.
Having a big nuclear powered surface vessel also provides plenty of power for future technologies.
>>27896279
>And the Roma would have been fine if her munitions didn't blow up
>Thats a design issue.
Right, the other part of the equation is of course to make sure that you don't have anything important behind the armor for the missiles to hit when they get through. Even without the magazine detonations Roma had both her engine rooms flooded and was dead in the water.
>>27896332
Russia, China, and soon India. And if you start building big fuckoff ships to go invadin with, they gonna get bought by anyone worried about you invading them.
>>27896218
>the job can be done much more efficiently by smaller ships
In what way?
If you are just sitting there 100 miles off shore firing tomahawks, then the job would be better done by one battleship carrying 500 of them.
>>27896343
Well no, you build things so the munitions explode outward, instead of destroying the ship/tank.
We have a lot of experience with this on land vehicles.
>>27896332
You don't use CIWS to take out ballistic missiles. Your options are VLS SAMs and rigorous prayer.
Armor still not adding any value
>>27896376
You take out ballistic missiles with lasers
Something you need a nuclear powered battleship to mount on
>>27896363
You won't always (or ever) need 500 missiles and sometimes you need to be doing things in more than one place.
If your magazines are exploding, you are dead. Even if you keep floating. If your engine rooms get hit, you are dead. If your sensors and ECM get taken out, you are dead. You can't feasibly armor your radomes and defensive SAMs, so once you get hit you are going to get hit again and again until you are really extra dead.
>>27896390
Or a carrier, or a nuclear cruiser without 50,000 tons of useless armor, or you use chemical lasers and mount them on literally fucking anything.
>>27896363
How could it be done better, you spread the trajectories out, your fuel and maintanence costs are lowered significantly, sure you're putting more ship out there, but you're doing it in a more affordable way.
if the zone of engagement is very fluid over a huge country you're better off moving a ship into range out of your many ships than move your 1 ship back and forth repeatedly.
>>27894851
>http://www.combatreform.org/battleships.htm
So apparently the Missouri is the Battlestar Galactica.
>>27896485
Is it mentioned anywhere how he imagines aircraft recovery happening?
>>27896457
m8
these destroyers are not cheap to build, nor to maintain
Having them drive around doing nothing but firing a missile here or there costs a fucking mint.
>>27896499
I couldn't handle text; my brain was bleeding. I just saved a picture and ran away.
>>27896510
Right but the solution to that is definitely not building a bigger, more expensive ship to launch those same missiles with less flexibility.
>>27896510
Imagine doing that with a battleship.
For a relevant battleship that has been discussed in this thread, we've going to need raw materials for 3-4x as much as it took for the Yamato, and then we need to stick technology all over it. Which is far less efficient resourcefully and strategically.
>>27890845
Replace turrets with VLS, or Use Battleships as ship based Artillery and nothing else.
>>27896529
A bigger ship would be cheaper to operate for the same capacity. The drawback would be that most missions wouldn't require all of its capacity in one place.
>>27896558
Material costs are not a significant part of the cost for these ships though, having 20 ships all with redundant equipment & abilities driving around doing essentially nothing costs far more than a single battleship would cost.
>>27896529
It doesn't have to be MORE EXPENSIVE, to be bigger
That's my point
>>27896603
>>27896619
These are arguments for arsenal ships, not armored battleships.
>>27896619
>It doesn't have to be MORE EXPENSIVE, to be bigger
YES IT DOES
thats a fact of fucking life.
You must be trolling at this point, there is no human way possible for you to be this retarded and capable of operating a computer.
>>27896279
>Not every missile is a 7 ton, 30 foot long super sonic ship killer
And it doesn't need one of those. Even wimpy little Harpoons or Exocets will cripple your BB beyond being operational with 2 or three hits max the moment someone cares to put a SAP warhead on 'em.
>The idea, is that you have a ship capable of going within 100 miles of shore.
Which any existing DDG is just as much as your pipedream battleship.
>>27896279
>And the Roma would have been fine
Italia being crippled from two hits that didn't detonate her magazine says otherwise.
Also, your theoretical battleship has the exact same design issue unless you wnat it to be armed with harsh language only. Be it ammo or capacitor banks for railguns, if you want it to have any firepower at all, there will be shit on board that will make it go boom big time when it gets hits.
>>27896636
We already have arsenal ships, they are called carriers
What I am talking about is more akin to a "litoral combat ship", except instead of a small, unarmed, unarmored frigate.
You would have a much larger & more capable vessel
>>27896049
>What kind of fucked up logic is this? One bomb was all it took to sink the Akagi. Three bombs sank the Kaga. One torpedo sank the Lexington. I guess that's why no one uses carriers today.
You have to hit a carrier from farther out. Its air assets are its armor, and they're far better armor than any battleship will ever have.
160nm of empty ocean > 24 inches of amor plating.
>>27896363
>If you are just sitting there 100 miles off shore firing tomahawks, then the job would be better done by one battleship carrying 500 of them.
But that is fucking wrong, you giganti ignorant retard. Your battleship carrying 500 of them would be more expensive, less mobile, less flexible and less surviable than a fleet of smaller DDGs arrying a similar amount.
>Well no, you build things so the munitions explode outward, instead of destroying the ship/tank.
Shit doesn't work like that with naval architecture. Stop trying to equate land-based vehicles and ships, you gigantic igorant retard. They work NOTHING the same in terms of design and architecture.
>>27896390
But that is wrong, you gigantic ignorant retard. Evne if you needed a nuke-powered ship to mount these non-existent lasers of your on, it still wouldn't be a battleship. It would still use missiles as its primary weapons with perhaps two or so 5in guns tacked on as an afterthought and it would not waste any tonnage on useless armor. It'd be a missile cruiser. Or missile battlecruiser. NOT a battleship.
>>27896696
Except the LCS's main strength is its small size and stealth capabilities.
a Battleship sized LCS will show up on radars except instead of a battleship they will see a frigate or maybe even larger because you made a fucking gigantic ship visible from space.
>>27896734
Are you even following the thread, or did you just give up and decide to throw up random cliches here and there?
>>27896696
Capable of what though?
Holding more of the same missiles ok whatever. Flight II Burke already got 96 VLS cells and that seems to do the job.
Carry a big gun? Less range and precision than missiles, still not saving much money because you're gonna need the missiles too
Carry a bunch of armor? Dead weight
At least the shitty regular LCS can sneak up on people, BIG LCS has no benefit.
The only justification for making a large naval vessel in the modern era is so that you can fit a flight deck on top of it.
>>27896179
> AND HERE COMES A GIANT MISSILE SWARM
Oh gee I wonder what that flotilla of guided missile cruisers is doing out there. I guess I should probably ruin their shit while they're still trying to find my carrier.
>>27896510
It costs orders of magnitude less than operating your shitty battleship and trying to replace it after it inevitably get rekt because it wastes all that tonnage on useless armor.
>>27896619
Stop repeating this idiotic and shitty lie that has been debunked multiple times over already. Infrastructure costs and wear and tear on such a big ship alone would ensure that it'd be much more expensive to run than multiple smaller ships. Deal with it.
Your point is illogical, ignorant garbage.
>>27896801
> orders of magnitude less
> debunked
> Infrastructure costs
avoid big words and sophisticated language he doesn't seem to understand our points at all
>>27896696
>What I am talking about is more akin to a "litoral combat ship", except instead of a small, unarmed, unarmored frigate. You would have a much larger & more capable vessel
It's called a Burke-class and it can do anything and everything your battleship can do, just cheaper and better.
You are literally thinking you are smarter than all the navies and all the warship designers in the world. Newsflash: You are not. You're just being delusional and trying to push a crappy white elephant that's been dismissed by everyone with an actual clue in the matter long ago.
>>27896774
Being able to bombard from a battleship will save billions of dollars in missiles and fighter/bomber usage
With larger projectiles from a battleship, i'm sure GPS guided gliding munitions will be just as accurate as any missile.
>>27896761
Will the LCS ever be used in its intended role? The thing costs half a billion dollars, has no weapons, would get ruined by a single guy with a machine gun....
>>27896838
>just cheaper and better.
You know they cost 2 billion dollars each?
>>27895442
Do you really believe that naval architecture hasn't evolved since before WW2? Modern ship designs are a lot more survivable than ships from 70 years ago. The Stark got hit by 2 Exocets and survived. The Roberts sustained a broken keel from a mine, and survived. Either of those events would have sunk a WW2 destroyer.
>>27896844
If you aren't trading volleys with another battleship, you don't need twelve main guns. You'd only need one or two long range guns for shore bombardment, assuming rocket-boosted shells you'd probably be able to get away with 8" rifles and still have a 50nm range. With guided shells, you wouldn't need the mass of a battleship as a stable firing platform.
So basically you'd have MCLWG:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8%22/55_caliber_Mark_71_gun
Which might actually work pretty well with modern ammunition, but nothing is stopping you from just sticking that on a destroyer hull for a lot less cost.
There is no reason to make the ship large and no reason to significantly armor it. Whatever weapons and electronics you want can be fielded on smaller vessels for better survivability, redundancy, and operational flexibility.
>>27896919
15" guns were pretty shit for shore bombardment anyway. The only reason battleships existed was to fight other battleships. They weren't the best shore bombardment platforms even in WW2. Those were cruisers and their 8 inch guns.
>>27896844
No, being able to bombard with your BB will not save a single dime because if you can bombard it with that you can just as well bombard it with a Burke and save yourself the enormous cost of building and maintaining the gigantic white elephant.
It will in fact flush billions of dolalrs down the drain when it inevitably gets killed due to being a gigantic white elephant that is both more expensive and less capable in every single relevant regard compared to a DDG.
>You know they cost 2 billion dollars each?
You know that this doesn't change that they can do everything your battleship can do both cheaper and better? Well, unless you think your BB is gonna be cheaper than 2 billion... in which case you're just being delusional and clueless again.
>>27896878
Guess what's also evolved and even moreso? Weapons. The gap between firepower and survivability has become consistently WIDER throughout those 70 years and armor has consistently become LESS useful.
The Stark and Roberts were also a lot bigger than WWII-era destroyers. And one Exocet detonation (you failed to mention that the second one hitting the Stark was a dud) and mine respectively were more than enough to knock both of 'em into being not combat-capable anymore and requiring full-on drydock repairs. FFS, the Roberts had to be carried back for her repairs by a heavy lift ship.
>>27896919
This.
Even if you need a huge capacitor bank or a nuke reactor for some new-fnagled railgun, you'd still build something completely unlike a battleship - more like the unholy fusion of a DDG and a Jackie Fisher-style battleCRUISER. One or two guns, lots of sensors, missiles and active defenses and no armor beyond splinter protection and perhaps some plating aroudn the reactor if you're going for nuke propulsion.
>>27895752
>Since the majority of the displacement will be armor, which requires essentially no maintainence or manpower
You've never been on a ship, have you? Armor, and every other shipboard component, requires constant maintenance. Relentless, ongoing, diligent, tedious, OCD-level maintenance. Aside from the obvious corrosion issues, shipboard hull and armor plating are subject to constant torquing and flexing. Metal fatigue and work hardening becomes a thing, a thing which requires constant monitoring and maintenance. There's a reason why HTs tend to hate their life.
>>27896919
Armoring it and making it large would be the whole point.
Can these modern ships even fire an 8 inch gun without wrecking themselves? Rocket boosting shells is a waste of time that will never happen.
The whole point I am making, is having an armored vessel capable of taking artillery/tank/machine gun/rocket launcher fire without a problem.
For seizing ports, for providing close in fire support in aid of amphibious landings, for being the lead vessel in a convoy through dangerous waters like the strait entering the gulf.
>>27896969
And how many times has the burke or the tico ever used thier main gun at an enemy?
If the roberts or stark had 24" of armor, those mines/exocets wouldn't have done any damage.
>>27891023
You really can though, it really isn't that difficult to make a guided missile.
Where he fucks up is not realizing that it isn't "oh the missile flies really fast and since ships are not fighter jets they will die" in the real world. Which is understandable, I imagine it must be hard being a fucking retard living in this crazy, crazy world of ours. What's crazy to think is that right now somebody could plow a Cessna full of ANFO into a docked warship, fuck even bothering with an anti-ship missile made in some dickhead's garage.
>>27894768
As opposed to the ship being cut in half from the powder magazines detonating?
Arguing that "well the capacitors could explode!" is a retarded position when they're replacing a few hundred tons of high explosive propellant that is and has always been game over for a battleship if it goes up. This is a warship we're talking about, not some cuddle club hugbox boat: it's going to be at least somewhat dangerous just by default.
Hell, guns have always had a liability inherent to their deployment on ships since the 1400's anyway.
>>27897054
you are beyond delusional at this point
>>27896499
From what I remember the few actual aircraft carrier/battleship hybrids in history didn't recover their own aircrafts; they'd use auxiliary carriers for landing
>>27891836
>>27893722
The only possible reason I can think of for building a classic gun-battleship is because someone uses an EMP and rekts the systems on a large number of vessels.
Even in such case, missiles would still defeat them and it's relatively reasonable to believe if the enemy has an EMP, they have missiles.
In the ideal "scenario", with no missiles, maybe they'd make great artillery peices, but in which case we probably don't have planes either (you know, the OG battleship-fucker-upper) and by which point large naval battles is pretty useless.
>>27897396
Could they potentially use the capacitors to power some tesla coil type shit, and have them discharge when an enemy warhead is about to hit
>>27897054
>Rocket boosting shells is a waste of time that will never happen.
Every NATO power except Belgium uses rocket-assisted projectiles to some degree.
>>27897632
...
Short answer is no, not ever, please stop.
>>27897054
In other words, there would be no real point to armoring it and making it large because those things are completely useless in modern naval warfare. Also, RAP and base bleed shells have been a thing for a long fucking time, you clueless dipshit.
Shore-bound artillery and TANK fire? What the fuck are you idiotic dipshit smoking? You NEVER drive ANY warship that close to a hostile shore these days unless you want to eat a gazillion suprise ASMs to the face. And there is absolutely no fucking reason why you would ever do this. This is not WWII anymore. You do not need to fire a hundred shells from five miles off overl open sights to have an acceptable chance of scoring a single hit against a bunker these days. Oh, and just as an FYI: A tank shell or RPG or whatever isn't gonna do shit to a DDG anyway - poking a few holes into it isn't going to discomfort it anymore than your uber-battleship would be by the same things shooting up its superstructure.
>And how many times has the burke or the tico ever used thier main gun at an enemy?
As many times as such a thing was actually necessary for the Navy.
>if the roberts or stark had 24'' of armor
They would not have been there on account of beign way too expensive. And the mine/exocet would have still knocked them inoperable anyway had they been there.
No amount of armor is going to protect you from an Exocet smashing your superstruture apart like on the Stark or from a mine warping your keel like what happened to the Roberts - in fact, weighing down the ships structure with armor would have made the damage sustained by the Roberts outright lethal for the ship and ruined any chance for her damage control teams to keep her afloat. Stop talking as if you know anythinbg about naval architecture or naval warfare, you goddamn ignorant retard. You know jack shit - ell, you know LESS than jack shit, everything you think you know is actually completely idiotic nonsense.
>>27895379
I wasn't talking about armor. It's pointless on modern ships, except possibly as fragment protection. I was talking about the fact that a warship that size is going to have a lot of the things that DO make a ship survivable against modern ordinance.
You start by having active defenses beginning a couple of hundred miles out, in concentric rings. The DC organization is for dealing with whatever gets through.
You sound like you think that ship designs stagnated since the 1930s. I also get the impression that you know very little about ship structure or damage control.
>>27897982
>You start by having active defenses beginning a couple of hundred miles out, in concentric rings. The DC organization is for dealing with whatever gets through.
Thats partly what a fleet, you know those numerous smaller ships, are there for.
>You sound like you think that ship designs stagnated since the 1930s. I also get the impression that you know very little about ship structure or damage control.
Battleship class design has, because they are worthless, this debate has been going on for decades and guess what, we do not have a BB parked in the Med or the Gulf of Oman
>>27898058
And the US has not had any naval fights in 80 years
Has not done any amphibious landings, or faced any well equipped/competent ground forces
etc
>>27898173
That is actually false, you goddamn ignorant mouthbreather.
And besides that is entirely irrelevant to the fact that any and all actual data, both practical and theoretical alike, points to the same conclusion: Battleships are fucking worthless in modern naval war. there is absolutely nothing of value that they bring to the table and that cannot be done better and cheaper by existing plattforms. They simply don't have a niche anymore and didn't have one ever since PGMs and massed airpower became a thing.
Even a weedy little Harpoon or Exocet with an AP warhead would hit harder and more precise than any battleship-size gun ever seriously envisioned. Firepower has won the race against armor decisively and not getting hit has become the only worthwhile defense left. Ship designers would happily armor their vessels today IF DOING SO MADE ANY SENSE. Which it just plain doesn't. Against modern firepower, having armor or not makes little to no difference and hence the armor itself becomes nothing but useless dead weight that could be better spent for bigger engines, more defensive systems, more sensors and/or more armament.
>>27898230
So there is great practical and theoretical data on ships that don't exist vs missiles that don't exist?
Great practical naval experience that involved shooting up a frigate or two
Of course, never once have i recommended Battleships for naval warfare here.
>>27890914
>>27890922
This is why I think submersible carriers are a fantastic idea.
>>27898314
Quite right.
>>27898305
Yes, shithead, there is. Stop trying to appeal to your own ignorance and stupidity as if they are valid arguments.
>Of course, never once have i recommended Battleships for naval warfare here.
Uh huh. Well, I hope you also didn't recommend them for anythign else except being a gigantic waste of money and time and dying uselessly in any kind of serious conflict.
>>27898314
And then you realise that they'd be stupendously expensive, fuck off large, impossible to actually hide on account of it and still offer way less actual plane capacity than a normal carrier and no ability to operate larger force multipliers like tankers or AWACs.
A missile- or drone-centered sub would be a much more practical idea.
>>27896049
The first three replies are pretty good, but consider the following, the Bismarck was the lethal threat. It carried the offensive to the enemy. On an aircraft carrier, the aircraft constitute the lethal threat. You sink one Bismarck you have sunk 100% of the lethal threat presented by the Bismarck. You shoot down one F18 and you have shot down a very small fraction of the total lethal threat presented by the carrier.
Also, when you shoot down an aircraft, you still may not know where it's carrier is. When you sink the Bismarck, you know Damn well where that motherfucker is.
>>27898314
>>27898340
Psycho loony boards are that-a-way
>>>/x/
>>>/pol/
I always think the Iowa class is underrated to this day. They found a way to make 155mm shells go like 80-120 miles, right?
If they could do that with the 16' shells, an Iowa could basically BTFO 75% of the world's population. Don't like, 75% of people live within a hundred miles of the coast?
Each shell weighs like 2500 pounds... so it theoretically could be like 5 JDAMs power with each shell. 15 JDAMs a salvo from a single battery, 45 JDAMs with all three...almost a HUNDRED JDAMs per minute... from the main battery alone.
If they extended the secondaries range in a similar fashion, well... they fired fifteen 50 pound shells a minute and there were twenty of them.. that's 300 pounds of explosive each salvo, 15,000 pounds of explosive each minute.... of course only half of the battery would likely be in use...
That's like 2.5 million pounds of high explosive being dropped per hour.
If they found a way to extend the Iowa's range to around 100 miles... it would have so much ass kicking potential.
How far can those new 155mm shells the Zumwalts have go? Around 100 miles?
Why the fuck can't we design ammo for the Iowa's that can do that shit?
It would be AMAZING.
>>27898368
>A missile- or drone-centered sub would be a much more practical idea.
Nah m8, mass drivers (and maybe DEWs).
Imagine a future SSBN platform that actually lives up to its name. Shoot-and-scoot with mach 8 nuclear-tipped slugs from a 500km range.
>>27898058
You seem to be under the impression thst I think BBs are still a good idea. They look cool as fuck, and they get my jingoism rock hard. But strategically and tactically, they're just not worth the investment of resources.
If you back track this string of posts, you'll see that my initial response was regarding doing damage control on some huge imaginary BBCVN hybrid. The anon I was responding to seemed to think that damage control is harder on larger platforms. It's not. I've done DC work on both large and small platforms, larger is always better. You have more resources, better options, and a lot more reserve buoyancy. That can be traded for time. Use your time wisely and you don't have to walk home.
>>27895103
Mabu Rabu
>>27898368
>A missile- or drone-centered sub would be a much more practical idea.
Then why don't we just stop building carriers and build arsenal ships instead?
Or, rather, submersible arsenal ships.... :)
They can modify the Ohio's to carry like 150 cruise missiles and the Seawolf and Virginia class carries like 50 cruise missiles each, right?
>>27895395
Get Springsharp and realize that this design would fail.
>>27898457
>spend billions modifying multi-billion dollar subs to fire cruise missiles
whats the point m8
Cheaper to just build a new sub
>>27890845
You just make it a overgrown Ticonderoga.
>put Aegis (along with other bigass radars)
>put 12x CIWS
>remove 1-2 of the turrents and put vls for 300 missles
>put several rolling airframe launchers
>replace the bigass guns with several railguns
>put a helipad
>put a nuclear reactor
>???
>profit (for the military industrial complex)
>>27898555
No, I think the Ohio's have a drop in conversion tube with 7 tomahawks each and the SSNs already had plenty of cruise missiles.
>>27898624
....that is so sexy. I posted >>27898423. My math might be a little off but there is sooo much potential in the Iowa's. They were literally purpose built carrier escorts too. They'd still have a reason to be modernized. If people out there are bitching about not having enough jobs they should do it for the fuck of it.
>>27895395
I cant stop laughing at these stats my fucking god.
>three different CWIS "because"
"variety is the spice of life!!"
>500 SeaRAMs 500.
where are you going to fit all of those
>two different AShMs
Can you imagine the electronics nightmare that would be wiring those two systems together?
>torpedos on a BB
>610 VLS cells.
>20F35s
Where are you going to keep all the extra ordnance.
Wait wait, lets talk ammunition.
one SeaRAM holds 1500 rds of 20mm. You have 500. that means you need to store 750,000 rds of 20mm alone.
Ammo tally's are:
Rail guns (lets assume 20 shots per gun)=200 rds
155mm= 9000rds
127mm= 18000rds
113mm= 10000rds(200rds per gun?)
76mm= 4000rds
40mm= 103,040rds!
30mm= 177,440rds!
20mm= 750,000rds
More than a million rounds of ammunition, not even counting smaller cals'
Oh, plus 610 VLS cells and 100 AShM's
![Kirov-class_battlecruiser[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/u4y9pr1.jpg "Kirov-class_battlecruiser[1].jpg")
>>27890845
>If you get the Yamato.
>Put radar.
>AA missiles.
>Replace every AA turret with a Phalanx CIWS.
>Anti-torpedo missiles.
Done.
>>27898792
>replace every aa turret with a phalanx.
nigga what.
