Tank armor has advanced a lot since WW2.
What if we used the same tech on a larger scale to do a Battleship.
Would it be unsinkable? Would it cost a lot? Like 15 billions?
>>28056450
given how other size classes have ballooned in both displacement and price, a modern battleship would be crazy for anything but a superpower to build.
>>28056450
>Unsinkable
You just jinked it so now they wouldnt float
THANKS ALOT ASSHOLE
>>28056450
Tank armor doesn't do shit against cruise missiles.
Ship armor for Ships
Tank armor for Tanks
Don't fuck with the way things work please.
>>28056450
For the love of God not you again.
It would do fine against everything other than the largest anti-ship missiles. Armor itself isn't very expensive, its all the other systems they want to pack into the ship that drives up the price.
Since amphibious invasions will never actually happen on isolated beaches, in reality what will be necessary is a "battleship" or some other sort of armored gun ship will need to approach a port to provide cover for the landing.
Long as you approach things from a cost-controlling point of view, spread critical systems out with redundancies, it would do fine.
>>28056450
It would be interesting, I think. It would probably have cannons that fire satellite guided shells, a shit load of ASMs, shitloads of CIWS and anti-air, and possibly the capability to launch helicoptors.
My other guess is that it would be primarily an ASM, cruise missile, and ICBM platform.
These ideas might be retarded, keep in mind I know jack shit about the modern navy and not much about the navies of the past.
>>28056450
heh, you again, resume from last thread
armor is irrelevant, if you loss control on sea/air you ship is going to sink
If the fucking thing floats, then the fucking thing can sink.
>>28056450
>Would it be unsinkable?
Against a modern anti-ship missile with a ~300kt warhead?
Good luck.
>>28056450
>Tank armor
What specifically? Modern Ceramics and composite armor really have a hard time defeating large shaped charge warheads like that of the AGM-114
ERA also doesn't do the job against larger warheads and kinetic rods, so hard and soft kill systems are being used on tanks now or being developed; Notably the dazzlers on the T-90A?S, or any sort of hard kill system in development right now IE Arena or Trophy.
Modern navies extensively use hard kill systems nowadays because it would be literally impossibly if you weren't a floating brick of steel, to defeat any very large ASBM or not sustain huge structural damage to large explosions or kinetic impacts.
Physics is just against very large dense objects (That we can manufacture) being hit by X modern weapon and not either breaking, or being penetrated.
Besides, most ships now are just used to carry one of three things:
Operators
Planes
Missiles
>>28056567
Not if it is built out of lighter than water material, dipshit
>>28056450
No that's dumb. Since battleships are fuckhuge they can take advantage of it and put crazy shit like dynamic armor. None of that reactive armor found on tanks.
>>28056470
let's take a look: the Gearing-class Destroyer was 3,460 tons full load
the Zumwalt-class is 14,798 tons
14798/3460= 4.27 times larger
now take the last Battleship the US ever made, Wisconsin.
displacement: 52,000 tons
by modern ship building logic, a new Battleship would weigh 222,040 standard tons
>>28056634
retard
>>28056634
now for prices:
Couldn't find Gearing prices on wiki, but I'll use the Allen M. Sumner-class for now
cost after inflation adjustment: 110 million USD
Zumwalt cost: expected 3,960 million USD
a nice even 360 times the cost
Iowa-class cost after inflation: 1.375 Billion USD each
so an new battleship would cost 495 billion USD
>>28056736
I don't exactly think this is accurate in any way to judge the price increase in building new ships, seeing as the construction of a battleship esk ship and a Zumwalt would be completely different. Try looking at the Kirov-class for price increases maybe?
Even so, half a Trillion dollars for one ship... It had better be able to go into fucking orbit and solve world hunger.
>>28056770
perhaps the Essex to Ford jump in aircraft carriers is a more accurate cost creep
Essex is about 1 billion adjusted and the Ford class is extimated 10 billion
so the new ship would estimate "only" 14 ish billion USD
>>28056634
At least the Ruskies and 50centers kind of know they are baiting.
But you're just oblivious.
>>28056450
not this shit again
>>28056868
The Ford/zumwalt costs so much because they wanted to pack so much shit into it
Want to build a next-generation naval ship.
A modern "battleship" would be built completely differently.
>>28056450
The battleship became an outdated design in 1935.
It remains so. One anti-ship ballistic missile would fuck up a battleship almost as much as a destroyer.
It is actually might be worse because the ship presents a larger and slower target.
It would be more expensive than a supercarrier, we would have to shut down Ford production for awhile because only Newport can handle that size, and the ship would simply be missile spammer.
We'd be better off just packing a civvy container ship full of ballistic missiles and going full GLA.
>>28056947
>inb4 ISIS packs a cargo ship full of scud launchers and sail to the east coast of the US.
>>28056990
I would laugh my ass off and probably join the nigs of DC in the ensuing riot.
Hipsters
Out!
Anti-shipping is a role performed by missiles. If you really want something new, make an arsenal ship.
Shore bombardment doesn't require massive armor these days. Make a stabilized platform for some howizters with smart shells and you're good
>>28057092
Proper shore bombardment still needs something to lead the way, get into visual range, to spot targets and take enemy fire
>>28056533
no helicopters, but I'd bet it could launch and maintain a pretty nice drone fleet...
>>28057194
drones
>>28057246
Will be jammed & shot down
Will be interesting, a modern battleship that carries more Cruise missile and has enormous CIWS to counter enemy cruise missile, yet as well as having naval battery because of its class.
Modern battleship features should have several radars and has torpedo countermeasure (instead of decoys, it has mini-missile to disable or even destroy torpedoes/ guided torpedoes).
>>28056533
Hell yeah! even choppers! and satellite guided shells is a lot sweeter.
Tank armor is too heavy for ships, they'd sink.
>>28056450
large boats are not very good for modern combat. It takes too long for any kind of repair. It make more sense to have a set of smaller boats that contain the same number of guns that would of been on the suppose battleboat that the army needs
