How powerful is a Harpoon missile?
They look like shit.
you look like shit
>>28404881
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxpwIsZCgtM
It wouldn't even scratch the paint on a WW2 battleship
Piss poor capabilities in the modern age
I will laugh my ass off if the LCS is equipped with them
>>28406151
yes if we learned anything from WW2 it's that battleships are immune to high explosives, it's why there are so many of them around today
>>28406239
They were retired because of nukes
not high explosives
Look at how big that fucking missile is. Now picture a bullet. Now back to the missile. Now back to the bullet.
That missiles is basically filled with ten thousand bullets.
>>28406116
That song is so damn snazzy, neat.
>>28406151
while its true that a ww2 BBs armor would be quite effective vs modern anti ship missiles, modern anti ship missiles are only weak because modern ships have no armor. If we started having armored ships they would just make more powerful missiles.
>>28406303
nukes cant hurt a battleship either :^) (just its crew)
>>28406151
It'll wreck the bridge for sure. Which it could lazily float its way onto because WW2 battleships couldnt hope to shoot down a missile.
Also battleships arent immune to a JDAM dropped down from 40000 feet that floats down the smokestack.
There's a reason noone has battleships anymore. Planes made them obselete and AShMs were the flowers on the grave.
>>28407808
Dude jdam's use pre-set gps guidance, which tends not work all that well against moving targets
>>28407808
>AShMs were the flowers on the grave.
Except they can't really penetrate, say, the Iowa's armor belt. If anything, AShMs just give them longer range capability.
Still, says enough that an Iowa is more than enough to take on an entire Russian surface group.
>>28407895
>an Iowa is more than enough to take on an entire Russian surface group.
>>28408035
This a direct quote:
"You Americans do not realize what formidable warships you have in these four battleships. We have concluded after careful analysis that these magnificent vessels are in fact the most to be feared in your entire naval arsenal. When engaged in combat we could throw everything we have at those ships and all our firepower would just bounce off or be of little effect. Then we are exhausted, we will detect you coming over the horizon and then you will sink us."
-Soviet Fleet Admiral Sergei I. Gorshkov,1985- Quote after watching the Iowa in a NATO exercise
>>28407895
On a side note- just how much firepower would it take to get through an Iowa's armor? Ignoring like bunker busters and nukes, does the US Navy have any missiles that could punch through that?
>>28408050
BRING BACK THE IOWAS
>>28408137
One of those fancy new railguns could do the trick.
Otherwise, I'd have to go with a close range shot from another Iowa's 16 inchers.
>>28408137
It's not just getting through the armor, it's getting through the armor and having enough energy to do damage to what's behind it.
>>28408137
A cruise missile should do the trick.
>>28408137
Another Iowa firing from less that 18,000 yards would do it.
>>28408251
iowas a shit, practically battlecruisers
>muh 35 knots
no chance at all to withstand any sort of battering from its own guns = not a battleship
>>28406303
:/
>>28408476
>practicality battlecruisers
No.
Not if they make 16" LRAP shells for it.
So much ass kicking potential.
Stronger than you.
>>28408519
a battleship is defined by its armor, not its weaponry. You can put battleship sized guns on non battleships, it was done. there were 12 inch cruisers, i think the russians even had a destroyer with one gigantic gun on it, this is ignoring the actual battlecruisers with literally the same guns of the battleships of their day.
The defining characteristic of a battleship is that it is designed with the intention of fighting other ships like it. They are ships of the line, designed to engage in slugging matches. The iowas were designed to escort carriers and fight older, less powerful battleships. They were not designed to engage battleships of the same 'generation' as themselves, and so i would argue that makes them not a battleship. That they literally sacrificed armor for more speed to fulfill this mission makes them sound, classically, like a battlecruiser. You could argue they were first of a new type of 'superbattlecruiser', using a more battleship-esque armor layout, but only thinner armor in favor of speed with no design intention to fight equivalent ships.
You may as well call them battleships since the era ended and there is no real need to invent some last minute classifications. But the purpose of my argument is more as a mechanism to point out the deficiency that the iowas had, as well to bring attention to the idea that a battleship is not defined by its weapon systems. We could have a powerful shore bombardment naval gunnery platform with out making a 'battleship'. Battleships are fat and heavy and not very fuel efficient, so i have to laugh when people argue for bringing back battleships because the marines want a bombardment platform. You dont have to fully armor something for that job or give it the kind of insane redundancy and overlapping compartmentalized design of a ship actually meant to sustain direct hits from small automobile-weighed shells full of explosives able to function with literally half the ship missing.
>>28408468
The sad thing is, the Iowa's have an all or nothing armor schematic.
The USS Texas was built before that schematic was created, so it's armored very homogeneously.
So, a WW1 era battleship would be harder to sink.
>>28408492
g-get up yamato, its time to spess ;_;
>>28408645
I appreciate the fuckhuge comment but...
Literally, ask anyone, the Iowa's are battleships.
>>28408681
Clamato a shit.
>>28408137
A salvo of cruise missiles from an Ohio or a flotilla of Surface ships could probably just beat the shit out of one enough to get her to withdraw. The Iowas were equipped with the Phalanx point defense system and have radar directed 5 inchers, so that means a well-trained crew could knock out a lot of those.
The Iowas are a REALLY outdated platform, but nothing comes close to their bullet sponge characteristics. The ships had a a great belt but also a lot of secondary armor covering important command areas and had vertical armor specifically designed to resist the typical bombs carried by Jap carrier aircraft, not to mention torpedo blisters.
tl;dr. a shitload of cruise missiles could stop the bbbrrrrrrrt of the sea, but not by necessarily sinking her.
>>28408676
Technically, IJN Mikasa served in WWI too
>>28408309
This. The Iowa class was designed with this in mind.
>>28408786
>outdated platform
It's a ship. Ships aren't outdated yet. And it's a HUGE ship, as big as it can be and still fit through the canal. So it's literally the best we can build.
We just need to modernize.
16" and 5" LRAP would be incredible. You could make room for tons of missiles. You could result find room for twice as many CIWS. Imagine a 16" nuclear LRAP. THAT ALONE is reason enough to put the ships back in action if there's ever a serious war.
The modernizations the Iowa's received were nothing compared to an all out war purpose modernization. Look at models of Gearing class destroyers from during WW2 and then look at what happened to them after the war. During the war they were DECKED OUT with weapons on every surface. When the guns were firing shell casings covered what little walking surface there was. That is a wartime loadout. Looking more like a floating tank from 40K than an actual ship.
>>28409008
no anon. Wear and tear, stresses to the steel and aging of the superstructure.
A hull cant last forever. You could shine them up but at their core they are just not as spry as they used to be.
>>28409069
I can't argue with that logic without looking dumb, but what about the USS Constitution? Regardless, an Iowa would still be harder to sink than anything else in the fleet.
And the design is flawless. It's as wide and around as long of a ship we can build without it being unreasonable because of the canal. The platform is still viable.
There was a plan to turn them into assault carriers for the marines. Kinda neat.
>>28408676
>A WW1 Battleship would be harder to sink.
Not necessarily f. a. m. With it's more evenly laid out armor scheme, a New York class [Texas] Could probably stay in the fight longer, but something with an All or Nothing layout or a composite layout like the North Carolina class would likely be more survivable.
>>28409161
Very true, but as a generalization the USS Texas has less weak points in its armor that can be exploited.
>>28409008
Original commentor here. This is why I Said outdated and not obsolete. Theyre good ships for sure.
>we should modernize them
Wish a nigga would. but theyd fill a a very niche role that currently doesn't need to be filled. It would be a ship without a mission, too expensive a title for a flagship of the sort.
>Too expensive to operate to remove Pirate
>Too expensive to remove kebab.
>too complex\important to be stationed at Bahrain for QRF against Iran, in the unlikely event its SHTF
>TOO high a powerlevel for stationing in animuville for a QRF Squadron if Taiwan ever gets under siege ( the only role where a BB woild be better than a carrier)
>inb4 "b_but we station a carrier in Japan"
Battleships are fucking frightening, more so than a supercarrier, psychologically speaking. A warhorse bred purely for the worst conditions is more intimidating than a jack of all trades. This would strain relations with China, and probsbly lead to some sort of new naval arms race. [Pic Related]
>>28409152
>what about the Constitution.
Apples and oranges dude. There's a huge difference between the demands of sitting at dock as a tourist attraction with the occasional tow across the harbor for repair work, and being able to sail on the high seas and take fire, especially in the amounts a Battleship must. I'm sure a total refit could be done, but at that point it could be cheaper just to built a new class with lessons learned and derived from the Iowas and her predecessors, but like I said, theyd be ships without missions apart from a Great White Fleet scenario, which would be cool but might start a naval arms race.
>>28409229
Fair enough, but an all or nothing style ship was meant to act like an armored raft of sorts. As long as the Citadel wasn't oompromised, it'd be fine, not necessarily combat effective, but not dead in the water. wiki the standard type Battleship and you'll see what I mean. 1 important caveat that youve touched on though is that Standard Types "All or Nothings" were very vulerable to plunging fire and spallation of the main belt, both of which could result in deflagratuon (baboooom) Pic Related
>>28409152
>but what about the USS Constitution
Its a very small ship in comparison, and requires constant maintenance, and even when it was still 'afloat', it was kept in a protective harbor and when it went out to sail 'under its own power', they only let it go in a straight line, and use topsails only in calm winds, so it didnt go very fast (it did make pretty impressive speed for a ship using only topsails in that wind, however)
Basically, its a small pet project we keep around for symbolism and would never try to use in combat, or even cross an ocean with.
Likewise an iowa may be a good museum ship for a long time. but if you start steaming it around the ocean and put the strains on it that firing weapons would provide, it will deteriorate much more rapidly.
They were already used much longer than they were ever imagined by the designers
Consider if we put the effort into refitting one one, and launch it, the cost expenditure would never justify it unless we got at least a few decades out of it, and honestly by then you are looking at a century old ship floating around. Maintaining it would probably require the retooling of some factories to make replacement parts which we are surely out of by now...
Its probably quite literally a cheaper proposition to just build a new battleship.
Though as ive said earlier in this thread a battleship wouldnt be the right aproach anyway. Make a large arsenal ship that has some big guns on it for cheap shore bombardment in addition to its missile batteries.
it would probably be smarter to use 12 inch guns or something around that size though, my gut just tells me 16 inch for romanticisms sake is not efficient. We would basically have to design a new gun system, and a new factory for the shells anyway. Des moines got up to 10rpgpm in 8 inch half a century ago, we should be able to match that with 12 inch guns now?
2 triple turrets at 10rpgpm for one round per second, the rest of the ship is a massive missile battery
Would battleships with rail guns and cruise missiles and 16 inch guns make for a good coastal defense ship?
>>28408676
I love the Texas, I try to see her every few months.
>>28409455
This. ALL of this.
The Russian one has only 270km range with its sensor detection range of only 50km which means if it is sea skimming, it can only detect the target when it is 50km away from it which is stupid because using AWACs, an Arleigh Burke can detect it 300km away.
The Chinese one is very cheap so its build quality must be hideous, I heard Iraq fired them at American ships before and it got lost or something.
Why can't countries like Britain or France also copy something like a Harpoon?
>>28409635
>Why can't countries like Britain or France also copy something like a Harpoon?
They're developing the Perseus right now
>>28409635
>Why can't countries like Britain or France also copy something like a Harpoon?
It's called Exocet
>>28408050
Now THAT sounds like bullshit.
>>28407850
You need to go back to bomb school and read some books.
>>28407808
>It'll wreck the bridge for sure.
Iowa Superstructure/Bridge was actually more heavily armored than the turrets.
>>28404881
Powerful enough to mission kill pretty much anything sans a kirov with 1 or two.
It does, however, lack the legs from ship based platform, and has been relegated to air launched only.
Its just not smart enough for todays battlefield, hence it is being supplemented with based LRASM.
Harpoon > Warship.
>>28408468
Look at those tough motherfuckers, just standing around watching the awesome with absolutely no idea that Tommy Lee Jones gets blown off his feet when the Missouri fires her main guns in Under Siege. And he was on the bridge balcony if memory serves.
Movies, eh?
>>28409635
Actually now, with CEC, the burke can FIRE on it from detection range, over the horizan.
>>28409705
The thing is though, with the navy's insane D/C proficiency that ship is probably saveable and could be brought back in the fight pretty quickly.
>>28409759
Only the USN has consistently demonstrated good D/C in modern naval combat.
The USN found out that armor does not save ships, the crew does. With proper design and flood control mixed with proper D/C, you dont need armor.
>>28409705
Great job blowing a massive hole in the ship and hitting absolutely nothing of any importance. The radome is intact, the stern is intact, the bridge is intact and they clearly didn't hit any ammunition storage.
That hit wouldn't even slow it down in a fight.
>>28409799
Oh, that hit would indeed slow it down, but it should keep combat footing.
>>28409701
Battle Bridge of the Missouri.
>People talking about Battleship armour as if they were made of fucking Mithril and that the only reason they were retired is because too many people hate freedom
>The largest most heavily armoured battleship in history was sunk by lightweight aerial torpedoes and 500lb bombs
>>28409799
>That hit wouldn't even slow it down in a fight.
Lets not get stupid now.
>>28409705
>Not hitting it on the waterline
This is why China has superior anti ship missiles.
>>28409833
>The largest most heavily armoured battleship in history was sunk by lightweight aerial torpedoes and 500lb bombs
By a whole lot of them.
That said armored warships would simply result in more powerful missiles that could get the job done. We certainly have the capability to wreck battleship armor if we wanted to, its just we dont need to, so on a technicality its cool to point out that BB armor is pretty good protection against modern anti ship missiles.
>>28409862
>this matters anymore
Because modern warships flood if you pen it below the water line.
Much, much better to hit it where things are, radar, guns, VLS tubes, etc.
>>28409884
No, BB armor is not.
SM-2s in anti surface mode would wreck a BBs infanstructure. Harpoons would also penetrate, and LRASMs would most likely one shot it.
You fail to take into account speed and weight alone.
>>28409884
Yeah it took like 12 hits. So that'd be what, twelve missile launches? Maybe 20 just to make sure any defences are saturated?
>>28409905
I dont know man, a few years back i was talking to this guy who did weapons testing for the navy, he was some sort of.. weapons engineer type fellow. He was commenting on battleship armor and specifically stated as a sort of 'neat fact' that an iowas armor belt holds up very well to anti ship missiles
Now, armor belt is a specific part of the ship, so with the right guidance its not like its going to intercept every missile thrown at it, but as battleships arent actually ever going to be in combat again anyway, thats a technicality that can be glossed over for the sake of romanticism.
>>28409925
12 hits, however they were targeted all to one side. the musashi before it which took hits all over lasted much longer, we learned from that and specifically hit yamato in only one side, and she basically couldn't counter flood fast enough to keep her from tipping over due to all the holes being in the same place.
While its not really important since it would have sunk either way eventually, it can be said that if not for this the yamato would have lasted a lot longer, which is worth baring in mind.
>>28409668
It probably is, but Gorshkov was the guy who authorised both the Orlan heavy cruisers and Akula strategic submarines. He was the sort of nut who would of wanted battleships in the 1980s.
>>28409942
Your full of shit because its phycially (as in basic physics) impossible.
12 inches wont stop a 1 metric ton AGM-158C going 600ish MPH. Thats before its very large blast frag payload
It would not stop a mach 3.5 RIM-66 either.
To big, to fast.
>>28410064
>To big, to fast.
>To big
>to fast
>To
>to
>>28410064
It's pretty amazing how destructive these are BEFORE the warhead is even taken into account
>>28410090
I fail to see relevence.
>>28410092
Yes, even the harpoon, a very small missle puts incredible force simply due to weight and speed.
>>28410109
>relevence
>>28410138
>too easy
Thanks for the extra (you). Cant wait for the next one.
>>28410152
>Cant
>>28410159
Your being obtues with your greentexts, can you be more clear?
>3
>>28410184
>obtues
>>28410197
You're point is a bit nebulous, can you please reinterate?
>4
>>28410215
>reinterate
>>28410228
Yes, reincarte you'r point.
>5
>>28404881
Powerful enough to kill the whale.
>>28410239
>reincarte
>you'r
>>28410247
Cant you please specifically print out you'are point.
>6
>>28410261
>Cant
>you'are
>this entire thread
you're all so vastly intelligent.
who would have thought a bunch of 12 year olds on a mongolian cave painting board could outsmart not only the US Navy, but world-wide naval doctrine and come up with a plan to make Battleships viable again.
Bravo gents.
You're all low functioning autists.
>>28410282
Agein, i fial to see exaectly waht yuor piont is.
>>28410331
>Agein
>i
>fial
>exaectly
>waht
>yuor
>piont
>>28410329
Shhh, im having fun.
>>28410331
>>28410282
Oh, and
>7
>>28407895
There is a pervasive but incorrect mentality with battleships and tanks that the entire vessel/vehicle is as heavily armored as the armor belts/frontal armor.
>>28410340
>I cdn'uolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg: the phaonmneel pweor of the hmuan mnid. Aoccdrnig to a rseearch taem at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? Yaeh and you awlyas thguoht slpeling was ipmorantt.
>8, and have fun
>>28410382
9 (You)'s.
I did well.
>>28410411
That was perfectly elocuted.
>>28408050
I'll take my advice from the dudes leading a Navy bigger than the next 11 largest combined instead of a shitty drunk admiral of a floating rusted out coffee can.
>>28410427
Thank you, kind xir.
>>28406339
>while its true that a ww2 BBs armor would be quite effective vs modern anti ship missiles, modern anti ship missiles are only weak because modern ships have no armor. If we started having armored ships they would just make more powerful missiles.
This, with the addition that it takes longer to build ships to such a degree that a fleet meant to resist modern AShMs would have to be built in secret and wasted on a single surprise operation.
>>28410439
>xir
>>28409833
hit by over 6600 pounds of explosive below the waterline
>>28410090
wow you really destroyed his argument there
>>28410064
>1 metric ton AGM-158C going 600ish MPH
Neat. Battleship armor was designed to stop AP shells of similar weight going about 3 times as fast.
Its true it has a larger explosive component, but if it doesn't actually penetrate it wont matter, since battleships have fired high capacity shells at each other in the past and done practically nothing
That missile is essentially a single battleship shell that can be delivered by an aircraft.
If it hits in the right spot it can do serious damage, but its the kind of thing the ship was meant to be able to take.
>>28404881
About as powerful as the Exocet.
>>28410064
This is false!
I ran a simulation
12 inches of high grade low alloy steel will stop before breaking with the equivalent of 1.32 million pounds of force pressing on it which is what that impact would impart on the steel
>>28410656
with shit casings, bad fuses and unpredictable angles due to ballistic trajectories. shells breaking up on impact and doing nothing was common.
>>28410675
it was angled to an effective of 13.5 inches, and thats if the missile is flying along the surface and hits it dead on, if it slopes down at all that will increase to an effective 14 or even 15 inches
If magic missile fuckery makes it dip down just before impact so it can have a slight up-trajectory at impact to neutralize the sloping, then i guess the 12 inch number is significant.
But then again if the missile is that maneuverable it can just go down one of the stacks and its pointless to talk about armor.
>>28410675
might i add this is adjusted for visual effect, the actual deformation looks like this
>>28410694
No the guy i was replying to said that the energy from the missile alone would penetrate the main belt armor of the iowa, simply calling him on his BS
>>28408137
>does the US Navy have any missiles that could punch through that?
Missiles - no. 2000 pound LGBs and Mk 48 torpedos will do the trick. Also of course nukes (i don't understand why people always refuse to take nukes into account, too OP of you?)
>>28410713
I know, im elaborating that its even better than your simulation shows because it actually had even more effective armor than he said it does
>>28410731
we have tested nukes on battleships
it took two
and it had pre-existing battle damage
Thing with nukes though is it kills the crew so it doesnt matter if the ship survives or not
Still, takes two nukes to sink a BB.
>>28410760
>we have tested nukes on battleships
>it took two
With proximity blast. It will take one direct hit.
>>28410817
But can the nuke penetrate the deck armor before detonating? :^)
One day we may have heavily armored missile cruisers able to take surprise hits from railguns from across the horizon and built to stay afloat and retaliate.
>>28410656
Except anyone with half a brain would realize that trying to sink a ship with that much armor is a pointless waste and instead be content with fucking up things like radar and communications to render it irrelevant.
>>28406303
If you had ever actually been on a battleship it would become very clear to you why they were retired and I'll give you a hint it wasn't nukes.
>>28410713
>>28410675
Not him, but the LRASM warhead has a penetrator so the force is exerted over a very small area, like a bunker buster.
Can you model that? It looks like the force was spread evenly in your program, is my point.
>>28408645
Battlecruisers were obsolete after ww1. 1ST rate BB kept increasing in speed until they could just about match a BC. Hence the term fast battleship. Besides, people had a tendency to throw battle cruisers in with the big boys. Just ask the Hood how that works out...
Also. Iowa was designed to use the Panama canal. Most ww2 BBs could not.
>>28409820
I was actually just there on vacation, truly a beautiful ship. Here's a picture from the bridge.
>>28411044
I'm working on that, it's a bit tricky
>>28411068
>Battlecruisers were obsolete after ww1. 1ST rate BB kept increasing in speed until they could just about match a BC. Hence the term fast battleship.
and fast and standard battleships coexisted
fast battleships were just up-armored battlecruisers which, due to propulsion advancements, could adopt more traditional fatty battleship hulls and layouts (but have inferior armor to standards)
this is kind of my entire point.
>>28411044
i dont see how thats going to make a difference when you are still going so slow. Its not like AP wasnt designed with a hard tip, ill just assume that modern materials would give a better penetration capability but its still going at less than half the speed an equivalent weight BB shell would on impact
>>28411165
>i dont see how thats going to make a difference when you are still going so slow. Its not like AP wasnt designed with a hard tip
16 inch MK 8 SH AP (or equivlent) would peirce the belt.
Remeber that bunkerbusters are subsonic too.
>>28408137
JDAM down the smokestack.
>>28411343
>GPS guided anti-ship weapon
>>28411353
>add datalink to jdam kit
>now anything is possible
They also added laser targetting to GPS kits, so there is that. Hit a moving truck.
>>28407850
>what are LGB's
Look the big thing is that modern Anti-ship missiles would do dick all to an Iowa class unless hitting extremely specific locations (IE extreamly low chance). It would take all of 1-2 months if there was a serious enough threat that called for it to engineer a missile that could penetrate the armor reliably.
Remember it took 3 weeks from conception to bombs on target to create the GBU-28. Crazy bastards turned 8" artillery barrels into bombs.
>>28411514
I have full faith in the LRASM, with its penetrator, to pen the armor of an iowa
>>28409635
Britain owns Harpoon.
They're currently fitting them on the Type 45s.
>>28406239
He's right though. One of the reasons Regan reactivated the Iowa class was because the Russians had nothing short of nuclear torpedoes that could sink them. Their whole purpose was basically to tank missiles for the rest of the fleet.
>>28411530
Comparitivly the MK 8 SH AP (which could penetrate) weigh's about 600lb's more and traveled at around Mach II with a super hard penetrating tip.
Not saying it "can't" penetrate the armor on the Iowa class but that better be one damn good EFP on that missile for lacking the speed and having less mass. Most likely it would superficially damage and certainly warp a small area, but failure to penetrate as it's primarily designed against fairly thinly armored targets.
>>28411599
>traveled at around Mach II with a super hard penetrating tip.
First things first, unless it is point blank its not going to be trucking at mach two, at nominal ranges it will be well into the mach one range.
>EFP
Neither use EFPs.
>>28406151
>It wouldn't even scratch the paint on a WW2 battleship
As there are no WW2 battleships currently in service, that's kind of a moot point.
>>28409455
>You will never see the US in such dire straits that they use the USS Constitution for battle
>You will never broadside a modern enemy destroyer
>You will never float on a piece of hull, smell the sent of powder as you watch the top flag and mast of this mighty ship fall to a honored grave
>You will never hear the watered crew sing the Star Spangled banner as she sinks
>You will never let off a cheer as the enemy destroyer falls, bearing witness to the Constitution's final kill.
There is no God, no reason to live.
>>28404881
It's outdated and the continued use is a reflection of the US's option that killing surface ships is a job for subs and aircraft, not surface ships.
>>28408137
Any number of heavy bombs could do it. 2000 pound bombs with any guidance package would do serious damage to deck armor, stacks, superstructure and rigging.
Hellfires and Mavericks with the right warhead would cause localized damage and could breach the deck armor.
>>28411530
I dont, According to Navy Specifications the LRASM weighs 1 ton and flies at just subsonic
that's about 13 Million lbs of force if it all was imparted into the steel instantaneously.
Well if you run a simulation of 13 Million lbs of force to a 12'x12'x1' mild steel plate in a 2cm diameter circle the maximum stress on the steel is 132MPa, A36 mild steel's ultimate tensile strength (the point where the penetrator would go through) is between 400 and 540 MPa
Contrasting that:
The Iowa's Mk8 shell weighs 1225kg and flies at 762m/s giving it 79.95Million lbs of force. Running a simulation with the same steel and area of force application, the maximum stress seen is 812.89MPa
>>28408035
> Detected beyond the horizon by a Tu-95
> Missile spam
> The Iowa's UAVs pick up the launch, guns start firing
> Battleship is soon converted into a conflagration by multiple missile strikes to the superstructure
> CIWS can't keep up
> Tomahawk box launchers are either fired off to little effect, or burn and explode
> Fire spreads below decks
> Fuel and ammunition starts to cook off, sinking the ship
> Soviet fleet, having detected the incoming shells, has spread out in the meantime.
> Iowa is then destroyed by land-based bombers as it floats and burns
> Iowa rolls up to a coastline, starts bombarding positions inland
> Fast hydrofoils bearing missiles zoom up under radar
> Fire missiles, under radar
> Missiles sea-skim in, pop up and destroy the bridge and fire control
>>28411745
What speed did you have the lrasm fly at?
>>28409635
>Why can't countries like Britain or France also copy something like a Harpoon?
It's called Exocet you fatlard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet
>>28411757
340m/s aka speed of sound, being generous since the spec says just under the speed of sound
>>28408050
This is a direct quote:
>You Americans do not realize what formidable warships you have in these four space hoppers. We have concluded after careful analysis that these magnificent vessels are in fact the most to be feared in your entire naval arsenal. When engaged in combat we could throw everything we have at those ships and all our firepower would just bounce off or be of little effect. Then we are exhausted, we will detect you coming over the horizon and then you will sink us.
We need to replace our carriers with space hoppers.
>>28411632
>not going to be trucking at mach two
So it's minimum velocity is ~470m/s at 42000 yards, still exerts 321.62MPa on the steel
almost three times more stress than the LRASM
reran the iowa shell simulation form here: >>28411745 to account for the shell velocity at max range
>>28411746
>The whole Russian Armed Forces vs 1 Iowa
>Muh scenario stands
>>28411859
Thats more realistic than a point blank shot, but i dont see how a shell that weighs 200 kg more flying 1/3 more speed is exerting 3x the force.
>>28411939
Velocity gets squared when calculating kinetic energy, small differences can be made very large very quickly.
As for the energy carried exerted; the Mk8 shell at 470m/s has about 2.4x the energy as opposed to the LRASM.
And for the stress on the steel, 321.62MPa is about 2.43x larger than 132MPa so everything checks out
>>28406116
I like the moustaches of the guy at the last second.
another thread demonstrating that americans are autist retards
>>28406339
Because the Arkansas and Nagato weren't completely wrecked and sunk in the Baker detonation in Operation Cross Roads.
Spoiler alert: they were.
>>28408915
The Mikasa is the last surviving pre-dread in the world, the Texas is the last dread.
I believe the Olympia is the last Armored Cruiser form the era, and I think the Russians have the last Protected Cruiser.
All museums, thank god. I've got the Mikasa under my belt and I'm looking for an excuse to get to Houston to see the Texas.
>>28409455
>Make a large arsenal ship that has some big guns on it for cheap shore bombardment in addition to its missile batteries.
Sooooo... a monitor.
Not as crazy as pic related, but it's essentially the ideals behind the "modern" monitor (Shit some of the Brit designs had to be towed, they were essentially just gun platforms that happened to look like ships).
Primarily made for the mission of bombarding shit but being cheap, and easy to make compared to the battleships carrying the same fuckhuege guns.
>>28412285
Monitors are coastal defense ships. Not something you'd want to take across an ocean to shell other people's coasts.
>>28409799
You obviously have never seen how much it actually takes to sink modern ships when they do SINKEX's.
It's quite ridiculous given they have no armor, but there is a large amount of protection factors inherent in the design. A crew just makes them more efficient and effective.
>>28409455
>it would probably be smarter to use 12 inch guns or something around that size though, my gut just tells me 16 inch for romanticisms sake is not efficient. We would basically have to design a new gun system, and a new factory for the shells anyway. Des moines got up to 10rpgpm in 8 inch half a century ago, we should be able to match that with 12 inch guns now?
Against anything that's not another battleship, it's better to use 155mm guns.
>>28409820
No joke that is. I've seen the Iowa's. It's like a giant thick ass tube of armor with the battle bridge nestled inside and a teeny tiny navigation bridge for visibility (and tradition) outside of the tube.
17" of Class A armor (and the thickest out of all the armor on the ship IIRC)
>>28412231
Theh lacked damage control parties in both of their cases. Not to mention nagato was a floating wreck already.
>>28411377
>>28411475
However we are quick to forget that lasers are useless in shit weather or if there is smoke.
Regardless... everyone is like "lolGPS" and seems to forget the damned things have INS for telemetry/guidance. Not like it's pinpoint against a moving target, but 36 knots and below isn't exactly ludicrous speed.
>>28409975
No, the Yamato would've lasted like an hour longer only to the extent that 'last' means still floating, even with everyone inside dead.
>>28408050
>quoting a Russian admiral who made the statement based on weapons and tactics 30 years ago.
here's the deal kid, as time progresses people add new weapons to their arsenals. for instance, the Russians didn't have SS-N-26s or 27s at that time.
>>28411745
You, I like you.
Science and shit.
Thanks for being you /k/omrade.
>>28408519
>LRLAP
>So much ass kicking potential.
more like so much exploding potential. you know, as in the ship exploding. you know that's why we don't use LRLAP shells on destroyers and cruisers right? because of the tendency to blow up in the barrel?
>>28412302
I meant parts of the concept, not the whole thing.
>>28408786
>Phalanx
CWIS is good for a 15-20 second burst of fire, after that it has to be reloaded. which makes it ineffective against mass missile attacks, as it's pretty much only good for 1-2 missiles.
>radar directed 5 inchers
which are legitimately the least effective weapons against anything going over 600 knots. they're literally not worth firing against anything supersonic.
point I'm getting at is their AW defense is pretty much worthless, and they could knock out MAYBE 10% of the missiles shot at them.
>>28412382
Hey man, I was just bored and haven't used my 3d modeling/physics simulation software in a long time
>>28412426
even if they dont stop the missiles, from hitting, most modern ASMs will hit at or near the waterline which simply wouldn't penetrate an Iowa.
>>28412328
Fair point on the latter, not so much on the former. The Arkansas was instantly wrecked, tossed onto her side and sank. Damage Control won't be doing shit. However, I just learned she was a part of the Able Detonation too, didn't know that.
And of course we have the whole gamut of intense heat, pressure, and gamma rays that will have effects on the crew before they go into DC action.
>>28412426
Everyone is like CIWS CIWS CIWS.
What's the measured effectiveness of modern Naval SAM systems? I used to play Harpoon back in the day and met some success in shooting down ASM's with Sea Sparrows and the like.
I assume the more modern RIM's and shit can do better?
>>28412302
>Not something you'd want to take across an ocean to shell other people's coasts.
This is America, buddy.
>>28411514
Except battleships are really big ships, and any missile that is designed to penetrate the 2 feet of armor would be limited in damage compared to 500kg of HE.
In conclusion, the BB was the A-10 of the naval world, and we need a modern variation of it.
>>28412451
As they obviously learned, underwater detonation was more damaging since the Nevada did relatively okay in the Able detonation.
>>28410092
I think it was a maverick that knocked out a T-55 in testing even though someone had forgot to arm the warhead?
Could be wrong, long time ago i read about it.
>>28407850
Look up Operation Resultant Fury and get back to us.
>>28408050
Don't you think he is just being sarcastic? Yeah it would do his adversary good if they abandoned carriers and get BB gaga. No it has nothing to do with the sheer ease a single nuke missile making it and vaporizing the whole thing , no it doesn't have anything to do with lacking the whole range to do anything about it either, no sir!
>>28413070
Soviets weren't going to use nuke missiles first
Thats the quick way to escalate what could be a short conventional fight to an ICBM slugmatch noone wins.
If an amphibious invasion were to actually occur
It would be ESSENTIAL to have ships capable of approaching the shoreline, and taking hits from ASM's without being sunk.
>>28411117
I'd be interested in seeing that modelled as well.
>>28412626
Not even close. The BB was the naval version of the air superiority fighter.
>>28412441
>most modern ASMs will hit at or near the waterline which simply wouldn't penetrate an Iowa.
There's just no need to waste a missile on an Iowa when a crude, remote-controlled bomb will kill it without it being able to do anything about it.
>>28412626
>the BB was the A-10 of the naval world
highly overrated, slow, obsolete and in need of replacing?
>>28413070
He probably greentexted the whole quote.
>>28409820
Funny thing is that an RPG-7 could probably pen that
>>28412255
>I believe the Olympia is the last Armored Cruiser form the era, and I think the Russians have the last Protected Cruiser.
Olympia and Aurora are both protected cruisers. The Greeks have the last armored cruiser, the Georgios Averof.
>>28404881
Who cares? They are all getting replaced by the LRASM.
>>28409455
Yea you're right....
It would be cheaper to just build a new one if needs be.
But it's a fucking HUGE part of history and having it operational and in service guarantees it gets the maintenance attention it needs.
And don't think we couldn't have nuclear cannonballs and DU grapeshot for the Constitution. Anything is possible.
>>28414734
>But it's a fucking HUGE part of history
It played a small role in the most irrelevant war in American history.
>>28414430
A modern battleship would obv use some composite armor
And lots of spaced armor
/k/. the sort of people who would be arguing we should use chariots, if we were in 1016.
>>28414064
best i could do was apply the full force focused on a very small area
see here:
>>28411745
>>28411859
>Tu-95 launches Kayaks
>Missouri detects vampires
>Missouri CIWS locks on to own bridge
>Fires
>Missouri dead in the water
>Kayaks missed
TOPKEK
>>28412313
big shells can produce bigger explosions because you can pack more boom in them
>>28412285
Well, if youre going to build a big scary ship it needs to fulfill its primary role to be cost effective:diplomacy
Battleships were never worth building for war. Even before aircraft carriers became a thing BBs were overpriced and too valuable to commit. A BB is the kind of thing you preserve because as long as it exists the enemy has to deal with it, not something you take into a decisive battle.
But battleships were the nukes of their era, the main focus of the arms race, and having a bunch of them was how you stayed safe from them. Even the monitor concept was based on this principal, the idea being you would need battleships to punch through a coastal defense consisting of monitors
If i seriously made even a 'not a battleship' ship, with lots of weapons and large in size, id build some pretty awesome luxury into it as well, and have it double as a diplomatic floating embassy.
That would be pretty awesome. "Our ambassadors travel by battleship" :^)
>>28417576
>big shells can produce bigger explosions because you can pack more boom in them
You can get the same effect by using several 155mm guns.
>>28417621
Cheaper per amount of boom to fire guided projectiles from larger guns.
LRLAP is just a meme
>>28417716
Large guns are expensive as fuck and wear out very quickly. They are also super inaccurate.
>guided projectiles
Just use cruise missiles or aircraft, at that point.
>>28414656
Whoops had it backwards. Also adding another ship to the bucket list. However I don't really plan on Greece in the future... but you never know.
>>28417846
> concentrated beam of light
> inaccurate
Battleship armor is not magic. Iowa's armor belt was 310 mm thick. It could be penetrated by, say, a Hellfire. Any anti-tank missile from the past few decades would probably suffice.
Now, I don't think anti-ship missiles usually carry HEAT warheads, but they very well could if the typical target called for that. Obviously they'd be a lot more potent than a Hellfire.
>>28417993
An aircraft wouldn't attack a battleship's belt armor. It would just drop a bomb on it.
>>28407850
Dude you're an idiot
>>28418015
Maybe, I'm just saying it's easy to penetrate that kind of armor if you need to.
>>28417993
And whats a heat warhead going to do vs a ship thats 1000 feet long? Any modern battleship would have modern-ish armor design.
>>28418099
>>28418099
well looks like its so effective it erased all the moderns BB from existence
>>28418133
Well no
Doctrine and nukes is what got rid of BB's
>>28418099
>modern battleship
Oh god, imagine the possibilities.
Nuclear powered, completely armored head to toe, reinforced keel, rail gun, LRAP, or scramjet projectiles with a few nuclear shells... maybe it can launch missiles from its main guns like the Sheridan tank.... tons of VLS cells and a few CIWS... stealth design for the fuck of it... wonder what it'd look like
>>28417993
While having good penetration shaped charge warheads have pathetic beyond armor effects. Against thick plate all they could is 1-2 inch diameter hole.
>>28418099
Honestly HEAT against big battleships is not that effective unless it hits the turrets.
There's a ton of space inside a ship, space to let the HEAT jet dissipate, and unlike tanks, the crew is not packed like sardines into an enclosed space.
Sure HEAT rounds can probably punch a hole through 1000mm of RHA, but what's the Jet going to destroy behind it?
The answer is nothing, unless it hits a turret. In which case you might set off the powder bags if the turret is in the process of loading/firing.
>>28418318
Doubtful that you would use a WW2 cannon/turret design either.
Certainly would be automatically loaded.
>>28418223
I'd imagine more slab sided, with very heavy armor.
Counter-missile systems are getting closer to the point where this might be practical. A surprising number of high energy laser development projects went dark in 2015, with promising results suddenly going to no information at all.
Laser anti-missile systems have the potential to pull the teeth of the most common counters to heavy armor, guided missiles.
>>28418369
I'd imagine more a multi-layered approach.
Against steel of decent thickness (4+ inches) you need HEAT or a KE penetrator. Both of these lose a lot of penetration power after initial impact.
Outer 4 inches or so triggers the HEAT warhead/deforms the KE penetrator.
Then an other 4 inches a couple meters behind catches the splinters/shrapnel. All the important stuff is behind this second layer. Maybe a third layer is justified for the Reactor and VLS cells.
Ya know what. Lets make a unholy love child of modern tech and a Iowa class battleship.
Muh Modern Tech+Protection of a Iowa class battleship= opran destroyer. Plus when the railguns become operational, the reds will probably piss their pants.
How would a bunker buster fair against the armor of an Iowa class Battleship? I'm rather curious.
>>28414430
Really? Not arguing with you, I am genuinely curious. When I think anti armor weapons that are "tested with precise specifications" I don't think RPG-7. That and 17" of any armor, especially stuff made for shelling, is fucking thick.
>>28418840
Weirdly. Many would detonate outside the deck armor, being made to breach dirt and reinforced cement. That would cause damage outside the armor..
A MOP, would on the other hand very likely breach the deck armor. Then.. well, it's a 13.6 ton bomb with a more then 2 ton warhead. Blowing up inside will generate so much internal over-pressure that the ship would blow apart, with huge fucking armor plates flying everywhere.
>>28418840
Bunkers have steel, but mostly concrete or similar materials. The thick steel battleship armor would likely still give current bunker busters trouble.
>>28418840
>>28419181
Through it like butter.
It's heaviest armored sections were 17.3" Steel if I recall and the bunker buster penetrated (in testing) over 20 ft of concrete.
US 6" Demo shaped charge test of different materials gave a ratio of penetration of 1:4.3 for Armored Plate vs Reinforced Concrete.
So "in theory" the GBU-28 would penetrate roughly 56" of Armor Plate. Meaning it would most likely pin hole the ship and penetrate the whole way barring hitting explosives BUUUUT it's a ballistic penetrator not a Shaped Charge.
Another ratio of ballistic (non shaped charge) equivalent values has multiplier of 1:0.11 for RHA Steel vs concrete (1:3:5 cement:sand:gravel mix), example of 0.6" RHA = 6" Concrete. So taking 20 Feet of concrete gives us equivalent of 26.4" RHA against a ballistic penetrator.
>>28419098
?
17 inches is 431 mm
The RPG-30 will penetrate over 600mm
You can see a pic here
>>28418260
Claiming 960mm penetration.
>>28406116
How would a submarine even acquire a target for a submarine launcher harpoon?
It's not like the sub can use radar to acquire location
>>28419363
VLF, ELF, and SLF radios can penetrate water from shallow depths.
>>28419363
It can. Radar mast are pretty standard equipment, though easy to spot.
A harpoon launched from a sub mostly gets a firing solution though other sources, like a communication link with other units. The missile is launched and flies to the attack area without external guidance, then uses it's own radar to find the target and attack.
>>28419363
By sonar or radar (if you don't need stealthy). For Harpoon you need bearing on target and rough range estimation (or don't even need range at all). Sonar can do that.
what if you add tracks to the Iowa?
>>28419359
Ok, that makes sense
But >>28418260 has a point, a 1-2" hole, or even a few dozen isn't really something I would consider effective on something the size of a battleship. It would be like using AP 5.7 on an elephant, sure you would get sufficient penetration, but its effectiveness would be debatably limited.
>>28419678
I'm pretty sure that by now if not soon the US will have an underwater GPS system.
>>28419098
Iowa doesn't have 17" of armor except on its turrets.
>>28406151
Depends on the attack mode. For a harpoon programmed to attack from a low angle, diving into the side or the superstructure, it might not create a whole lot of damage. If it's programmed for a pop-up attack during the terminal phase, it will dive through the relatively weak decks and explode inside the hull. The armored hull would contain the blast wave and spread it out lengthwise, through the breached decks.
An Iowa class battleship or something with similar armor plating might still float, but it'd have huge gaping internal wounds that sever internal comms, control systems, and damage control resources like fire main and AFFF. If it hits a fuel bunker as part of this that just add fuel to the - well, ya know.
>>28420166
The deck armor is spaced bomb/splinter plate with a combined thickness of more then 4 inches. The missile would detonate between the splinter plate and the bomb plate and do sweet fuck all, and the internal bulkheads would contain explosions and vent them out of the ship rather then into more compartments.
Barring a heavy AP round or something absurd like a MOP, nothing is going to break more then one compartment at a time on a battleship. Even if you turn one compartment into burning hell, the rest of the ship will be fine and able to fight.
>>28420017
Turrets had 17", Superstructure/Conning Tower had 17.3", conning tower to citadel was separated by 16".
>>28419838
>Iowa
That bridge is aping Yamato not Iowa.
>>28420166
Is there any videos of this popup maneuver?
Would probably lose a lot of speed doing it, making it much easier to intercept..
Comparing iowa armor to modern anti-ship missiles is a giant exercise in stupidity anyways.
>Iowa's armor is so strong that it can easily deflect anti-ship missiles
What the fuck, /k/? I come here expecting higher-than-braindead levels of discussion.
>>28420338
Well, crap. I can't seem to find a video. Or even a reference. Might have been in a paper manual I read in nineteen mumble-mumble.
Agree about being a pointless exercise. Like the 100 marines vs a stick meme.
>>28421107
> /k/
XOR
> higher than brain dead
# 1
_
>>28409555
I've always wanted to go but never got the chance, next time I'm heading to Louisiana I'm gonna try to get us to stop there.
>>28421676
Go away /g/. No one here will understand your logic gate humor.
>>28421107
weve even done the math in this thread to prove it
>>28410459
Don't trigger me.
>>28423504
*triggers*
>>28410369
I have learned something new today. Thank you anon
>>28408251
Iowa armed with railguns fucking when?
>>28423846
Never.
>>28423846
>>28423907
Battleships? Never. Battlecruisers? Maybe, but probably not.
>>28423846
Soon as everyone talks about how it's still one of the best ships we have.
Battleships fell out of favor because during WW2 people adapted to combat them with massed plane formations. You can't do that these days without dodging a fuck ton of missiles seeking you out.
So.... over time, it's become feasible to consider putting the Iowa's back on the table.
Give it that thing that shoots a torpedo intercepting torpedo, too. Why not?
>>28423952
>>28423961
The Navy wants distributed lethality, so expect one or two railguns to be on each destroyer and cruiser in the next generation of each class. They won't put enough railguns on a cruiser to be considered a battlecruiser though; the ships will still be loaded with VLS cells as the main armament.
>>28418223
>>reinforced keel
Just how vulnerable are modern ships to torpedo attack, anyway? Can armour, size and effective damage control mean a ship can resist being hit at least a couple of times without being fatally damaged, or do supercavitating keelbreaker warheads mean that any modern torpedo strike is always a one-hit kill?
>>28424019
If DE weapons and detection systems become so advanced as to make the missile obsolete, I could see a possible return to battlecruisers and battleships.
>>28423961
>You can't do that these days without dodging a fuck ton of missiles seeking you out.
>So.... over time, it's become feasible to consider putting the Iowa's back on the table.
No, because it will always be cheaper and more versatile to launch a simultaneous multi-directional attack from three squadrons with EW support. The problem that these threads have is you're arguing from a single outcome, sinking a modernized battleship, to bolster your argument. A lot of important things on a battleship can't be armored and the loss of those things will cripple a battleship's capacity as a combatant. You can't slap 17 inches of armor on a radar dish or communications array, you can't launch a navalized helicopter when the pad has gaping holes in it.
All a modernized battleship would be is a huge, expensive version of the Ticonderoga except intentionally gimping itself by requiring massive amounts of space for an incredibly niche weapon system that is underpowered in comparison to modern missiles.
>>28418840
Tirpitz was sunk by Tallboys, which were basically the same thing.
>>28424232
We're in a 5th generation era, the battleship doesn't need its own radar or helicopters.
Spotter UAV's would be adequate.
The purpose of the battleship would be to close on enemy shores & engage shore targets.
When the time comes for an amphibious invasion, you have to be able to rapidly seize a port. Which would involve taking & giving direct fire.
Obviously a modern battleship would not involve a 16 inch cannon made in the 30's.
>>28424948
>Spotter UAV's would be adequate.
No.
Not just no, HELL NO.
Full sized aircraft carriers can just do full AWACS coverage with their E-3C's, and even then there runs a good chance of gaps.
A UAV will never match an E-3's coverage unless it is just as big, and then it sure as FUCK wont fit on the aviation facilities of anything less than a assault ship.
You sir, are smoking crack.
>>28424971
>E-3
E-2*
My rage blinded me.
>>28424971
For spotting ground targets, for spotting inbound missiles/aircraft/boats/etc, Spotter UAV's would be adequate.
Hell, it could carry anti-mine/sub stuff too.
It's not a bigger tico, It's not there to defend carriers.
>>28425000
>For spotting ground targets
Yes, specifically for this UAV's have been used since the 80's for this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAI_RQ-2_Pioneer
> for spotting inbound missiles/aircraft/boats/etc, Spotter UAV's would be adequate.
Kill yourself.
>>28425039
>Kill yourself.
no, you, faggot.
This is literally what the MQ-8 is for, this is what the Navy is aiming for, a 24/7 patrol of UAV's to provide warning of any incoming attack.
>>28425087
Ready to how retarded you are, on multiple levels?
I just want to check to make sure you are sitting down before i shit all over your fucking asinine ideas, and your misrepresentation of the MQ-8 (including the C model)
>>28425158
>It's literally impossible to build a ship without a 500 million dollar radar
This is you
For spotting inbound missiles, inbound boats, inbound planes, etc.
A number of TERN uav's would be more than adequate.
>>28408645
I understand your point but in the American navy which called for and used them, the Iowas were as "battleship" as it got. American naval doctrine called for speed as a superior form of defense to armor. Whether that's good policy is up for debate, surely, but the Iowa class was that navy's idea of a battleship.
>>28424112
A torpedo under the keel basically displaces a fuck ton of water from under the ship very rapidly, which sucks the keel in. Then when the bubble collapses and all that water comes rushing back, it blows the keel back out but not with as much force...
It's very devastating which is why I said it needs those anti torpedo torpedoes and reinforcements on its keel to be cautious. Stealth torturous torpedoes don't exist yet do they?
>>28425201
Ok, so you are suggesting that you have full time coverage of all airspace over your ship out to applicable ranges for air defense AND for scouting/spotting missions. Being that you dont have a runway, you are limited to rotary wing based air frames, with all its limitations.
So you are looking at having 2 up at all time doing air defense/ground defense. and one out scouting/spotting MINIMUM. Due to you NOT having radar, you will need backups for all of these air frames. So you are looking at 6 air frames minimum, with the ability to launch and receive two helicopters at one time.
Keep in mind it HAS to be like this because your dumbass decided to remove a fucking radar.
So, first reason you are retarded: No non assault ship/carrier class can carry this much. The zumwalt, with his fuckhuge aviation facilities, can only carry 3 of the smaller MQ-8B firescouts, or two MQ-8C.
So, lets assume you create a new ship with about double the capacity (give or take) of a San Antonio class assault ship. Its retarded, but fuck it, anon knows best.
So now you got a bunch of MQ-8C's trolling around...with no actual payload! But fear not! Anon to the task.
MQ-8C has a payload of about 3 thousand pounds.
So you want to put a AWAC's like radar on a helicopter. Keep in mind a system with the range while keeping it light does not exist, lets assume we can do it under. So now you have about 1k pounds left for ground targeting and identification. Your best bet would be an LATIRN system (or EODAS), but you can do SAR too i guess. Keep in mind such a system does not exist for helicopter airborne systems.
So, tech does not exist for such a system, and if it did it would tax rotary assets immensely, and it would not be as good as fixed wing assets due to problems with space and size.
Oh, and for the final reason, UAV's are very easy to kill with other airbrone manned assets. If you lose just a few, congrats, you are now completely blind.
