you are tasked with the creation of a modern battleship, as the navy is not satisfied with their current low main battery power.
>you have access to all previous BB class ship designs and all weapons systems currently in use
>you have a $2 trillion dollar budget for this prototype
>must follow some common sense, no giant hovercrafts or submarines
so what do you build?
>>28454477
>you are tasked with the creation of a modern battleship
>must follow some common sense
I spend it all on Burkes.
>>28454492
what do you see as flaws of the battleship? I figure if you rebuilt it, the class could make one hell of a comeback as a formidable weapon.
>>28454477
Give it the ability to submerge underwater and carry aircraft and UAVs.
>>28454538
About the only function a battleship can have today is land bombardment. Nothing it can do that planes with smart bombs or even drones can do better. Sorry anon. They have gone the way of biplanes, galleons and muskets.
God I love design threads.
Basically my design would revolve around the battle ship being a dedicated rail gun platform.
I'd also figure out how to integrate a GAU-8 or two.
What about a stealth battleship?
>>28454632
>integrate a GAU-8 or two.
You mean CIWS Goalkeeper?
A battleship except it has tracks for operations on land.
>>28454648
No, he should make the CIWS system out of GAU-8s. Imagine it!
>>28454661
Find it!
>>28454661
are you much retarded? Did you have a stroke? CIWS Goalkeeper is make from GAU-8s.
>>28454632
>>28454661
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goalkeeper_CIWS
THAT'S BEEN AROUND FOREVER lol
>>28454477
I would simply take an existing Nimitz, throw almost all the fighters into the ocean and pack it to the brim with AWACS and ASW.
Then I would fill up all the missile tubes in the rest of the CSG cause they're half empty right now. Maybe buy some of those cruise missiles in shipping containers that the Russians sell if anybody has room left.
And I would buy some AIP diesel electric subs off the shelf from Sweden. Probably need a tender in the CSG to help support them too.
Spend 3x the amount of current time and budget on training and maintenance.
Ban Facebook and reddit for all deployed personnel.
Bring back walking the plank as a form of discipline. Also lashing. Make examples out of incompetent sailors.
Replace 5" guns with mk71 8" guns on all Burkes
>>28454686
>>28454682
>>28454477
It's gonna be a guided missile cruiser on steroids.
PANAMAX hull, the latest in compact reactors, made modular for easy upgrade to Fusion once Lockheed's reactors are navalized, spaced composite armor, enormous control path redundancy, blow out pathways for all magazines, wet munitions storage, every consideration possible for damage control.
Main armament by volume will be huge VLS batteries, but secondary amament will be 8 128 Mj railguns, in 4 barbettes of 2.
There will be a helodeck, and it will have an expansive UAV hangar and complement.
Goalkeeper tracking and intercept tech and high speed motors and rings for the main guns. Every single armament is now dual function AA.
Part of the appeal of a modern ship of war, while capabilities are important, is also as a diplomatic tool. From the Great White Fleet to parking an aircraft carrier off the coast of a trouble spot. The thing must LOOK and sound the part of a few hundred thousand tonnes of "Here Comes the Freedom."
>>28454477
> 2 trillion dollars budget
> battleship
You should have seen it coming
Wouldn't any issues with AShM be solved by making the battleship submersible/sit almost entirely underwater ?
Doesn't need to go deep, just hiding under the surface.
the battleship of the 21st century would be armed with railguns for assault and would employ lasers for area defense.
it would also be much smaller than WWII era battleships, and much cheaper to operate. it also wouldn't be nearly as heavily armored.
>>28454730
yeah but how would you make a BB a sub without fucking up all the main batteries and weapon systems?
Two nuke plants, the main gun would use LRAP and be able to shoot missiles kinda like the Sheridan tank for longer range needs, the best armor it can get, the armor design would be for detecting bombs being dropped from above as well as missiles and shells from the sides, secondary batteries would use LRAP also, the keel would be massively reinforced, it would have twice the VLS of a Zumwalt, a small hangar and helipad at the back, typical stuff.
Basically it would be a modernized Iowa.
I've got no clue about the capabilities or needs of rail guns but the secondary reactor is there for that.
I'd still want traditional big guns on it though.
I don't know what technology the military has, so it's just dumb role play.
>>28454605
The saudi's have lost 2 ships so far in this yemen conflict
Rather than being a true "battleship"
And armored ship that can handle fire from artillery/tanks/missiles/helicopters would be a very useful thing.
>>28454743
How did those subs with deckguns work?
>>28454737
If it's not heavily armored it's not a BB.
There's good reason why battleships almost never sunk each other.
I loathe our modern doctrine of not armoring our ships at all.
>>28454758
iirc they had a garage thing near the con that they would roll the gun into and seal it up.
>>28454748
forgive me, I can't find anything on a LRAP, so do enlighten me, unless you mean LRAD?
Nuclear power
40 knot cruise speed
Armor proof against all current missiles and torpedoes
Super low profile above water
Stealth features
Cwis and SeaRAM for days
All other armaments and deck space is vertical launch tubes.
>>28454789
>battleship
>40 knot top speed
what the fuck?
not to mention no big guns, aka the big hallmark of a BB
>>28454806
The only reason big guns were the thing on BB's is because missiles didn't exist yet
Armor is really the thing that made a BB into a BB though.
>>28454781
advanced weapons have made it so that it is pointless to armor a modern warship. modern ASMs would annihilate a slow, heavy BB.
to counter that, ships need to be light, speedy, and able to destroy munitions before they get hit. what's the point of heavily armoring your BB to take hits when you can have a laser shoot down anything that comes your way?
>>28454782
WHOOPS
I meant LRLAP
A 6" LRLAP has a range of like 100 miles or something. I can't even imagine what a 16" would be like.
There is literally nothing a modern battleship can do that several smaller ships or better yet a submarine can't do better and safer.
Tell the navy to shove it and find someone else for their 2 trillion dollar giant floating target.
>>28454821
There's still a use for big guns, dude.
They have ways of making shells go very far
I forgot to mention scramjet shells in my post so it's main guns could bombard practically anything on the planet.
I take a burke hull, and I adapt it into a monitor (The WW2 version. Small hull with a couple of battleship guns, for shore bombardment duties.)
>>28454806
40 knots is the cruise speed, it would be capable of faster.
A hulls top speed is the square root of the length at the water line times 1.36.
Which would make my guided missile battleship over 1200 feet long at the waterline
>>28454835
We had a thread on /k/ awhile back. A shell from an Iowa's main guns has more energy than modern ASMs.
You underestimate armor.
The BBs of old got a reputation for being weak against air because they weren't designed to deflect bombs falling on them.
>>28454880
the old guns will be obsolete once the navy gets its railguns up and running.
the future of warships is lasers and railguns
>>28454857
well after looking at the maximum weight of a 16" shell plus the weight of a LRLAP, it would be about 10x the size generally speaking, with a 240lb warhead. I'd figure a range of about 350 miles with the within-3-yard accuracy.
>>28454857
Sure
Except that lrlap delivers 24 pounds of explosive and costs 400,000 dollars
Missiles are a far better way of delivering HE a good distance.
It's strange that the navy hasn't replaced all their useless main guns with some form of MLRS.
>>28454927
that would pretty much be like putting a paladin on the back of a carrier. it just wouldn't work given the use of a battleship, long range, widespread bombardment.
also to scramjet shell guy, I like the way you think.
>>28454620
OF COURSE, MEIN FUHRER
>>28454906
I don't see what the point of armor is in a modern context, though, if your lasers provide 100% coverage and can shoot down munitions.
even a railgun could be used to shoot down small aircraft and missiles
>>28454477
Wish they produced a working Montana Class battleship, would love to see the japs Yamato get wrecked by a ship named after my state.
>>28454965
nothing has a 100% coverage. shit, not even 4 CIWS could stop everything thrown at a ship.
to illustrate your shitty point;
"we don't need internal armor or reinforcement on our tanks because the TUSK and the reactive plates will stop everything"
All of you are thinking about this in the wrong way. Armor has a very important role to play, but not in the ww2 BB role. Consider this:
>a Corvette sized ship with maximum armor. Literally primary mission is to eat missiles.
> diesel electric and stealthy so everyone is paranoid about their sneakiness.
> just armor, a radar, sonar, and comms.
>minimal crew, plenty of life boats
> but do they have strap on missiles? Enemy can't afford to assume they don't. Can't ignore 'em, gotta deal with 'em.
> their role is to range out and screen for CSG, using radar to provide early warning for missile swarm attack etc. Secondary role is to help purpose built ASW/MCM ships by triangulation with their sonar. Also meat sheild, because they are so heavily armoured.
What would be a good name for this ship?
>>28454987
No bully
The era of big ship engagements is over. Just ask the British, they had to check like 3 times to be sure. Once you accept that, you accept that the battleship is obsolete.
>>28454477
Youll end up building a super-destroyer.
Only point in having a BB is having a hardened target that could eat hits and still fight. I suppose you could augment the BB design with modern armour materials to make it more resistant to kinetic and chemical damage, but at the end of the day a torpedo will still fuck it to bits no matter what.
Its not good to put all your eggs in one overcompensating basket OP.
Just build more attack submarines.
Invest the rest in some nuts crazy supercavitating torpedoes.
>>28455006
Rampart Class, USS McHenry.
>>28454477
I'll base it on the Iowa, redesign the armor to incorporate steel-encased DU and ceramic.
Power it with 3 Bechtel A1B reactors to get it within spitting distance of a gigawatt.
Six x 100 kilowatt free electron laser systems. The good news is that they can share vacuum pumps and klystron, but you really do want something big to pack them onto. Waste heat can be dumped right into the sea.
The lasers can be used for area anti-aircraft, missile, artillery and light surface craft work. Back it up with some VLS loaded with standard missiles for very long ranged AA and ABM and CRAM CIWS.
Systems and bays for helios and ASW drones and you have something with no easy counter. A battleship is, after all, defined by it's defenses.
Railguns, if workable, for the main battery. If not 6 X 12" guns firing guided shells in triple turrets with rocket assisted anti-armor rounds in case anyone else builds one of these monsters.
8 x 30mm chainguns with provisions for local control or being slaved to ship self defense system for close in defense.
Even with automation, you'd have a really, really fucking expensive boat that would absorb 900+ personnel, and it could only be one place at a time.
>>28454781
>I loathe our modern doctrine of not armoring our ships at all.
1) The traditional concept of ship armor is outdated
2) Missiles are insane these days, pic related
3) Phalanxes and other countermeasures are nothing if not reactive armor
>>28455023
The other part of it was having guns big enough to penetrate contemporary armour.
That's not an issue any more. Cruise missiels can wreck anything -> no need for big guns OR armour.
Current gamewinners are sensors, stealth and missile magazine.
Fuck, might as well just make more subs.
>>28455006
USS FuckMoney
>>28455055
Holy shit, got any more info on that gif?Harpoon hitting an old cruise liner/hospital ship?
>>28455050
I like this thing way too much. good work, sir.
>>28455023
>but at the end of the day a torpedo will still fuck it to bits no matter what.
Thats really not true, armor the keel, make everything resistant to the shock. And torpedoes won't be effective without a direct hit.
>>28455006
AWACS and EW aircraft pretty much do that job already.
>>28454921
THAT'S IT. BRING BACK THE IOWAS. GIVE THEM SIXTEEN INCH NUCLEAR SCRAMJET ASSISTED LRLAP SHELLS.
The things could practically NEVER leave port and STILL provide fire support.
WHY THE FUCK haven't we done this ALREADY?
>>28454927
The same arguments to the cost of F-35 development apply. After everything is ironed out they will cost next to nothing via mass production. Besides, a 16" LRLAP could still have a nuclear payload.
>>28454965
It's better to have armor and not need it, than need it and not have it.
>>28454998
i see your analogy, but it's not really the same.
modern warships engage at much longer distances than tanks, in tens or hundreds of miles. this gives them a lot more time to shoot stuff down before it reaches them (assuming you're using powerful lasers or railguns)
tanks have to be able to soak up RPGs and machine gun fire from <1km. of course you need armor for this kind of thing, you can't always react to threats from so close. and you can't afford to put delicate lasers on your tank to shoot down enemy tank munitions or other shit
>>28455050
How does it protect itself against subs and supercavitating torpedos?
>>28455094
Torpedoes dont kill via direct hits anymore, this isnt WW2. Supercavitation is a thing, and the boat will literally suffer severe if not catastrophic damage from its own weight.
>>28455103
There is ZERO reason to fire MISSILES out of a CANNON
The only reason to do this is for tanks who have no room to add missile launchers.
>>28455094
You... don't know how modern torpedoes work, do you?
>>28455120
But it would be SO COOL, anon.
>>28455111
the subs, destroyers, and sub killer helicopters in your fleet should help with this
>>28455055
I can't imagine how expensive it would be to armor a BB with composite and DU mesh
>>28455055
That wasn't armor.
THIS is armor.
>>28455168
Not to mention how obscenely heavy it would become.
>>28455116
>>28455126
I'm not him, but enough steel will stop pretty much anything. Enough steel will support pretty much anything.
>>28455175
"look cpl, some planes!"
"shit where'd that one go"
BOOM
my fucking sides, man
>>28455116
>>28455126
Modern torpedos wouldn't do shit to a iowa.
It's only 650lbs of explosives
It kills unarmored destroyers/subs, yes.
But not a battleship
>>28455120
WRONG.
Keeping missiles within the citadel would be much safer than in VLS tubes.
BOOYA
>>28455190
this man is right. if a battleship can take 3k pounds of HE to the citadel, multiple times, 650lbs of explosive wouldn't do shit right on the waist armor
>>28455175
A fighter hitting the side of a ship is conpletely different from a missile. Youre a fucking idiot for even thinking theyre remotely close to the same intensity of an impact.
>>28455188
good luck putting enough steel on your ship to counter modern weapons and still have it float
>>28455139
>>28455175
>>28455103
I recognise you BBfag
Don't think we realise its you, because we do
>>28455195
Keeping the missiles outside the armor would be even better, familio
>>28455206
I know that. But now I want you to imagine that same plane hitting a modern warship.
It do a lot more than scratch paint.
And the Iowa's were kept around as long as they were because they could literally tank missiles.
>>28455111
ASW drone swarm and a pair of utility/ASW helicopters should provide primary anti-sub defense. You could add a towed countermeasure system as well, but with 900 megawatts of power a submarine would be very hard pressed to catch one. They'd need to get lucky to intercept them, as this thing would be faster then any sub not going at "I am making too much noise please kill me now" speed.
As far as supercavitating torpedos, the primary defense is turning left. They are unguided weapons and more dangerous to the ship that fires them then anyone else.
>>28455056
Current for now.. but Raython is on time to deliver the first 100 kilowatt FEL to the navy in 2018.
It's quite possible that this is the twilight of long ranged missiles.
>>28455188
And that much steel is prohibitively heavy.
>>28455190
Two completely different ways of dealing damage, the citadel isnt bearing the weight of the whole ship while the hull is.
>>28455208
making heavy shit not sink isn't hard, just make it really fucking wide, or catamaran the bitch. seeing all the shit we've thought up, a modern battleship seems decently feasible.
>>28455243
>decently feasible
Yeah, you got any studies or proofs to back that?
>>28455227
Yea I'm easy to spot.
I think the real reason we don't armor our ships or push public military tech to its limits is because we don't want to be arsed with another arms race.
>>28455188
We're not talking about stopping anything. Ships are designed to sit in the water.
What modern torpedoes do is vaporise/displace a large amount of water underneath the keel of the ship.
The ship is now resting on nothing, but parts of the bow/stern are still supported by the water.
This cracks the keel in two like some sort of twisted fortune cookie.
Steel just straight up isn't going to survive that, the thicker you make it the heavier it weighs. You'd need carbon nanotubes or some shit. You're essentially building a bridge for all of the superstructure and then putting it in a force 200 storm.
>>28455069
this is what hit that ship
>>28455055
Holy fuck source on that gif? What am I looking at?
>>28455203
Thats why the 650lb of modern explosives goes off under the unarmored keel and breaks the ship's back while shaking everything off its mounts inside the hull. The ship might still float but its going to be hard to fight or even move around at speed without causing more damage.
>>28455264
Anything is possible, anon.
Besides, we have ways of countering torpedoes, right?
>>28455257
Or, or
Just because you get no new capabilities that are worth the price
>>28455241
The effect of a torpedo on a 10,000 ton minimally armored & over loaded destroyer is very different to a 50,000 ton heavy armored battleship.
>>28455264
You know things like bridges or tall buildings exist? It would be trivial to build a battleship fully capable of taking that stress.
>>28454492
Burke Swarm!
>>28454477
>2 trillion dollars
Do you even realize how much this is?
You could actually make a space battleship with that kind of money.
It costs ~5k$ to send a kilogram to space. Say you spend 1K$/kg for base material, 10k$/Kg for R&D and 4K$/Kg for logistics. You're at about 20k$/Kg, which is already very high for a large structure.
2 trillion dollars would put 100 000 tons in space, or the equivalent of a Nimitz aircraft carrier at full load. There you go, you have your space battleship.
More realistically, the ISS cost 150 billion and weighs 420 tons. 2 trillion would get you 13 space stations and thus 13*420=5460 tons of space stuff.
That's slightly below the weight of a current destroyer. Furthermore, space materials are much lighter (and can be bought for 1k$/Kg easily) so you could expect something much bigger, because the battleship doesn't have to support its own weight, provided that it doesn't accelerate at 1G or more in any direction.
Or, you could fight the Iraq war again, I dunno.
Battleship sized missile cruiser design and role
>>28455006
Bulwark class, name 'em after fortresses.
>>28455293
Provide proofs
>>28455293
>>28455288
When was the last time you saw a bridge or a tall building go from extreme loading one way to extreme loading the other?
and then do it while maintaining good seafaring characteristics.
and then there's the point where you could just use a nuclear warhead and just fuck your shit up anyway
>>28455307
>Or, you could fight the Iraq war again, I dunno.
once more, this time with feeling
>>28455307
OP here. I put that so you could have totally off the wall designs but with some limit. I feel as if a insane cap is better than "no money limit lolz"
besides, i'm pretty sure some of these designs would be pretty goddamn expensive.
>>28455326
Tall buildings are built to take strong winds/earthquakes and not tip over.
>>28455282
Fine, counter it without adding excessive weight. A foot thick steel plate half the length of the ship that goes down from the keel 30 feet. This would compartmentalize the displacement of water by the torpedo and more than double the ships existing survivability from such an attack.
BOOM. Problem solved.
WHERE'S MY MONEY, NAVY? Don't you steal my fucking ideas!!
>>28455357
You know how that it?
Because they sway with the wind, as in, they literally move. You know what's not a good idea at sea? A superstructure that can sway.
>>28455009
Cute
>>28455402
modern doctrine rotates around avoiding and countering munitions before they hit and do damage to the ship. better to have a light ship that can avoid or destroy torpedoes than a heavily armored ship that tanks them
>>28455288
Yeah. The new CAT system is just that.
It's a torpedo that targets torpedo.
Americans are crazy about shooting missiles with missiles and torpedoes with torpedoes.
>>28455099
Please anon. Not even close to enough AWACS. CSG coverage is fucking abysmal. Everything must die so f35 and their god complex fighter jocks can live. Even common sense.
Plus I think you're completely ignoring the proposal of a heavily armoured Corvette sized ship.
Don't change the subject.
>>28455189
"Did we hit something?"
"Yeah, don't worry its just a bug,"
Could the Orion battleship be built and launched for two trillion?
all right /k/ommandos, let's take the best designs from this glorious thread and consolidate them into one big motherfucker of a boat. instead of arguing random bullshit about torpedoes, let's make the grim reaper himself afraid of our design.
>>28455289
Maybe.
>>28455484
>yfw they build airplane wipers for battleship hulls
![2f46b965364093def008c744e8f81ca7[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/O3YeXzE.png "2f46b965364093def008c744e8f81ca7[1].png")
>>28455402
For all of that you might as well give the ship the ability to jump/fly for a short time.
>>28455189
>>28455484
From carrier, HMS Formidable, after being attacked by Kamikaze to HMS Indomitable (flying flag of Admiral Vian):
LITTLE YELLOW BASTARD.
Reply from Indomitable:
ARE YOU REFERRING TO ME.
>>28455175
>You can tell exactly what kind of plane it is from the impact
That's insane. Imagine being in that compartment and just hearing a loud THUD
>>28455428
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/25012/Threat-Torpedoes-That-Go-Under-The-Keels?page=2
This rlundgren guy seems like he knows what he's talking about.
And he says the side armor could support the weight of the ship. So it's impossible to snap the vessel in half.
>>28455512
>line AO for these ships with magnets on the ocean floor
>put magnets on the bottom of battleship hulls
>maglev battleship
>russia's face when our ships can levitate
>>28455355
Fair point.
I therefore confirm my design to be a space battleship.
>>28455333
THANKS OBAMA
>>28455512
Might as well just build an Orion then
>>28454477
I build a cute girl and call it a battleship.
>no submarines
in all seriousness I would just fit a virginia class sub with cruise missiles and that would be my battleship.
>>28455572
>virginia class
I swear to god I read "vagina class" because the rest of your post was lewd.
the battleship of the future:
>little to no armor
>fast
>laser CIWS
>railgun main batteries
>smaller caliber railguns for area defense
>>28455600
>little to no armor
That makes it a battlecruiser m8
>>28455600
>little to no armor
Define, pls. It'd be a fucking shame if a .50 BMG fired right above the waterline could sink your ship as soon as the seas get a little rough.
>>28455591
Oh god I just did it too.
>>28455637
>mfw bofors fire at the waterline kills a battleship
>>28455507
>Imagining that
Market it as cheaper alternative to missiles, don't market it as a wonder weapon. A $16,000 shell is cheaper than a $250,000 tomahawk.
Design shells similar to Excalibur and copperhead
Make it nuclear powered
Slave some of those early power harnesses directly to the reactor and use them for loading/unloading equipment and maintenance to refine the technology until suitable batteries are designed
Take the aft section and give it a flattop for VTOL like those Japanese Battleship/carrier hybrids.
Make it a Catamaran too.
Place nothing but VLS and two forward placed 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 gun turrets for offensive weapons.
Include four phalanx point defense guns,anti submarine rocket tubes and some type of ship based anti air missile for defense.
Thoughts?
>>28455615
I suppose, then battleships as a class continue to be extinct until there's some reason to heavily armor a warship
>>28455637
you'd probably want the same sort of armor as on the aircraft carriers, which isn't much
>>28455736
>you'd probably want the same sort of armor as on the aircraft carriers, which isn't much
Just buy a bunch of Nokias 3310 or AR500 plates and make chainmail with it.
>>28455736
>until there's some reason to heavily armor a warship
There is a reason right now
If you want to invade a country, you have to approach closer than 100+ miles out from shore
Sorry if this is a dumb question but can CIWS stop cannon rounds?
I know APS on tanks can stop ATGMs but can't stop cannon rounds so I was wondering if modern battleship cannons would be useful to get through where ASMs can't.
>>28455758
We don't want to invade anyone right now though.
Our biggest concern seems to be China building sand castles.
Besides, I'm kinda pro-isolationism. It's a balance thing.
>>28455767
APS on tanks can stop cannon rounds
>>28454477
>modern
>battleship
no
If only there was some large battlecruiser that could deliver conventional or nuclear packages on target from hundreds of miles, while also serving as a staging point. Such a large craft could be nuclear powered, and then you can have a large flight deck with catapults for combat aircraft. You could even bounce C-130s off of it if need be.
Battleships were obsolete before 1939, anon.
"The fiercest serpent may be overcome by a swarm of ants. They (Battleships) are like elaborate religious scrolls which old people hung up in their homes. They are of no proved worth. They are purely a matter of faith—not reality." - Admiral Yamamoto, 1936
>>28454758
>How did those subs with deckguns work?
They were tiny guns basically just bolted to the deck. Not really comparable to a battleship's main battery.
>>28455758
why does it matter if your lasers and railguns can shoot down ASMs before they even get close?
for the record, the USN is building railguns that launch projectiles at mach 7 and can travel at least 100 mi
>>28455792
Tracking time is shorter and the round itself is far more robust. It's much, much harder to intercept a cannon shell then a guided missile.
>>28455835
Because that wave of a 100 sea skimming missiles comes over the horizon and is only 30 seconds from the ship.
>>28454758
>And armored ship that can handle fire from artillery/tanks/missiles/helicopters would be a very useful thing.
You asking more for the coast defence monitor than battleship. Battleship main purpose was to fight other ships.
Make it out of nanomachines
>>28454477
Just remake Bismark/Tirpitz with modern technology and be King of seas
Submarine super-gun battleship.
Something like diesel-electric power plant that would allow for staying submerged until mission time.
Gerald Bull's super-gun running the length of the ship. Work the bugs out to get a higher rate of fire. Baby Babylon was expected to get a range of 750 km with its 46 meter long barrel. Big Babylon was expected to launch satellites with a bore of 1 meter and a length of 156 meters. The gun is aimed by titling and turning the ship. Maybe three guns fed like revolvers.
Hmm, problem being, this is a terror weapon. Not flexible enough to have any other purpose other than holding all their coastal cities hostage. A real submarine armed with cruise missiles could do the same and more. Guess the difference would be that the beast could carry more ammo. Guess there could be a niche where the defenders have a solid air defense.
>>28455887
well, your battleship will be with an entire fleet of ships that is able to counter them. and if you're fighting a country that's able to fire 100 missiles at once in one location, you'll come prepared.
>>28455889
Well that is probably obsolete, considering missiles could be infinitely scaled up.
>>28455479
A heavily armed corvette that will have worse mobility and sensor range than an airborne AWACS, not to mention willbe an easy target for a sub if it intends to do its job and stray from the core formation to act as a sensor screen
>>28455887
send planes to kill whatever is launching the missiles
>>28455961
Anti-air sub launched missiles would be more effective against awacs than an armored corvette.
>>28455190
Iowa torpedo belt was rated against 300 kg TNT charge. Mk-48 has more powerful explosives than TNT its warhead probably around 450 kg of TNT equivalent. But even more none of WWII battleships including Iowa had bottom torpedo protection only side protection. Torpedo under keel will absolutely wreck any WWII battleship. It is possible to put protection on bottom but such ship with armor same as Iowa would be pushing into 100000 tons displacement range, maybe 150000.
Make the ship out of lasers.
Main batteries are railguns.
>>28455989
But a sub is vastly more capable of striking a surface vessel and staying hidden than hitting an aerial target without being detected.
>>28456005
That's just not true
A ww2 battleship wouldn't even notice a torpedo detonating under the keel.
The keel might get fucked up, might take on some water, but it won't snap in half like unarmored destroyers do.
>>28455887
Satellites detect IR bloom of seaskimmers before they crest the horizon, neo BB and escorts respond with rail/conventional flak to thin the numbers, lasers/CIS deal with the rest. Missiles will definitely get through but not many.
>>28455281
>brahmos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrahMos_(missile)
>>28456089
The torp detonation would not damage the citadel but the displacement of water under the hull would turn the BBs weight against it, cracking its spine
>>28454538
it's a big expensive single target when it could be 500 smaller targets
>>28456089
>A ww2 battleship wouldn't even notice a torpedo detonating under the keel.
WWII battleships regularly sustain heavy damage and sank after just side torpedo hits against protected areas. Bottom was not protected from torpedo explosions.
>The keel might get fucked up, might take on some water, but it won't snap in half like unarmored destroyers do.
Yeah it will not. But the damage to ship internals and area of flooding area would be very serious. Under magazine detonation could lead to ammo explosion and one hit kill as happened with Roma.
Well I would take an old Iowa class all non main guns would be replaced with oto merla 76mm rapid fire 120rpm cannon systems all secondary gun mounts smaller than 41mm replaced by goalkeeper cwis. I would imagine removing two turrets for vls with room for 500 aa missles. It would have the latest ageis system. I would also use boeings new pattented force field system http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/23/tech/boeing-shock-wave-attenuation-patent/ . It would deffinitly be nuke powered and have active torpedo counter measures. All remaining main guns will become railguns
>>28456164
Don't forget electronic warfare. With Russian missiles especially less then half can be expected to have terminal guidance perform properly in a modern EW environment.
>>28454887
There is so much more to it than this.......
As for my Design, Take the canceled Montana class, Nuclear power it, take that nice new railgun they just developed, Quadruple it's size, have 4 of them located where the original 16" guns would be. Keep the 5" armaments minus four, Add a CIWS where each Bofors would've been, Add a CIWS Goalkeeper for each removed 5" gun set. Then stick as many cruise missiles as you can fit in the large rear end of her.
>>28456299
Needs ASW platforms but this sounds good
>>28456299
just wait 10 years and replace all the CIWS with lasers
>>28455961
Munitions will always be cheaper than platforms. That's the point of this ship - its affordable and designed specifically to screen, go into danger and be a missile sink.
It protects, supplements, and supports the rest of the fleet. No AWACS after the carrier gets sunk.
>>28456354
>ASW
Antisub warfare I presume?
Just have a retractable Helipad with an ASW heli over the cruise missiles in the rear
>>28456422
I'd replace the normal CIWS systems, not the goalkeepers because they are useful for more than just missiles and planes
>>28454477
self propelled VLS barge with small built in radar but is usually slaved to the Air defense ships fire control systems because we all know that naval gun fights are done and its all going to be cruise missiles.
>>28455961
Also once a sub attacks it has revealed its general position and can then be found by ASW. Better to eat a torp with a small ship designed to take it than a burk/Ticonderoga/ford. This is the primary mission of this ship.
Bulldog class?
>>28456499
i thought Rampart Class was cooler, and the first ship being the USS McHenry (named of course after the fort in the US national anthem)
>>28456457
> its all going to be cruise missiles
Yes. Why can't people understand this
>>28456205
Thats not true
The side armor can support the weight of the ship
The Arkansas took a nuke at 200 yards, didn't crack the spine of the ship
>>28456499
Torp attacks are much harder to detect
>>28456545
I actually really like both rampart and McHenry. Kinda feel like it should have a naval theme though.
>>28456555
Not a great example as the Arkansas didnt straddle the displaced sphere of water. It was tossed aside.
>>28454477
Realistically this, but with railguns, CIWS, missles, and freakin laser beams
>>28456556
True.
I think that in general our ASW and especially MCM capabilities are pathetic right now. This stuff requires specialized ships and lots of training, and we have neither. That's a whole nother ball of wax though.
Statistically subs and mines kill way more ships than other surface ships ever do.
>>28456651
Anon, you have a two trillion dollar budget.
Fucking build battlestar galactica.
>>28456237
Look at how much it took to kill the Yamato's
The Roma was two hit kill.
>>28456549
>>28456674
Thats why they are building the LCS
Except they wanted to make it ~modular~ for some ungodly reason.
Rather than just making one version the MCM and the other ASW..
>>28456218
Couldn't the same thing be said of supercarriers?
>>28456549
because railguns will make them obsolete
>>28456688
I know I have two trillion dollar budget but i'm try to stay in the realm of reality. pic related is as crazy as I would get without going all sci-fi
>>28456721
let me know when you think of a way to divide a runway up into 500 ships
>>28456723
If we ever get past the fact that each shot basically destroys the rails, maybe.
>>28456745
they could line up and form one long runway.
>>28456745
Seaplanes, Checkmate
>>28456764
>America spends 10 billion dollars per carrier when they could just produce sea planes
what a world
>>28456791
if you can make a good modern seaplane fighter to replace the current method, let the dod know
![latest[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/iQPjUFO.jpg "latest[1].jpg")
Two Trillion could probably make this a reality.
>>28456764
>>28456815
I would love to see a great modern seaplane I get hard on just thinking about flying boats
>>28456791
kek, what are those clowns in the DoD doing when they could just read /k/ for ideas
>>28456848
go look up what the JMSDF has. They have a few seaplanes. One that started flying in 2002.
>>28456815
Since you could field 10 times the number of aircraft due to not needing CBG's, you could accept a degradation in performance.
The US military has also accepted that actual flight performance is not particularly useful in modern air combat.
So the only real difficulty would be making them stealth.
Make fuckhuge missile cruisers instead
>>28456864
>"in 2015 we will be deploying VTOL aircraft with artillery bombardment capabilities
>>28456900
>So the only real difficulty would be making them stealth.
How about...
underwater seaplanes????
>>28456706
Yeah. LCS as originally conceived would have been awesome. But instead it grew into an unholy tumor defense contractor welfare program because the navy leadership are retarded politicos and have long since outsourced all of their internal engineering talent.
It's so fucking bad that they cut the program to the absolute minimum they're contractually obligated to buy. For a big govt program like this, that should tell you all you need to know.
LCS is an abortion and a national embarrassment.
>>28456917
It seems like the ship itself is fine, no?
It's just these mission module packages are boondoggles, since they were too constrained by space & weight.
>>28456815
Seaplanes aren't fighters. They are extremely useful though. Great for resupplying subs with mail, fresh food, spare parts. Great for ISR and ASW. And they can land on lakes and rivers too. They can deliver marines, amtracks, supply to isolated locations. Real shame we basically abandoned them.
>>28456916
So basically a flying submarine>>28456916
>>28454477
>as the navy is not satisfied with their current low main battery power.
Then the navy is idiots.
>must follow some common sense
If I must follow common sense, then I give them pic related, put on sunglasses, and tell them to Get Over It.
>>28456738
How are planes supposed to take off and land in the middle of combat?
>>28454758
Have a roof like a the roof of a Baseball Stadium. (At the press of a button, it,s lowered to the sides of the ship, allowing guns access to air, then it can be lifted at the press of the same button)
>>28457237
On the side where the main battery isn't turned towards
>>28456738
YOU COULD BUILD THE HABBAKUK, dude!
A Habbakuk with nuclear reactors and rail guns!!
>>28454477
Reinstate the old ones with a laser defense system.
>laugh as all missile based navies of the world become obsolete
>>28457379
Scratch that, TWO Habbakuks. One for each coast.
I miss playing Red Alert, Tiberium Sun, etc
>>28457379
Man, they could do this today
>>28456499
Nokia class familio
>>28454477
Tricky, most modern naval doctrines favor smaller, cheaper ships to limit losses from AShMs.
First off, lets start with the most recent battleship design. the USS New Jersey.
Now rip the 16 inchers right out of the turret housing and replace them with railguns of similar size. I figure we can fire buzz bombs out of them that can take out most tanks. Against foes with superior ECM they're going to be the principle armament. Otherwise, they play point defense like the CIWS.
Speaking of the 20mm CIWSes? Get rid of them. They're just too weak for fighting on this scale. It's like having a coaxial 9mm on a tank.Replace them with dedicated ECM platforms.
Onto other defenses. Hollow out the belt armor and fill it with composites like Chobham armor. It's more weight and bulk efficient than steel. Further fortify the belt with ERA tiles. Add ceramic armor to the deck. The increased hardness should force sloping shots to bounce.
Now, the boilers? Replace them with a nuclear reactor. We've done it on subs and aircraft carriers and those railguns are going to need power.
Most of the offensive armament from the 1982 refit can stay, just be sure to reload with the latest missiles.
>>28457856
APS systems would fit perfectly well on a battleship too.
Which would almost totally counter the AShM threat.
>>28457856
my only addition to this would be a helo deck and hangar on it so it has some effective ASW.
>>28457907
Thats shit m8
Just have some crane operated unmanned boats & seaplanes
Helicopters are a dated & obsolete design.
There is a lot of talk about torpedoes in this thread but has anyone figured out just how much armor it would take to stop a modern ASM or a 2000lb bomb from penetrating through the top?
>>28457907
>>28457887
Did they add these in the 1982 refit? Ah well, you can rip off more of the 5"dual turrets and fit them with SAMs.
>>28457936
Modern ASMs are not heavy enough to be effective armor penetrators, but a 2000 lb gravity bomb is literally the reason why battleships aren't considered an effective survivable platform anymore.
>>28457936
A layer of ceramics might cause the casing to crack before it hits the deck. Otherwise you'd have to rely on active defenses.
>>28458078
Battleships were never really designed to counter bombs from planes, I don't think.
>>28458078
Just means that a modern designed battleship would have more deck armor
Possibly a tumblerhome hull like the zumwalt.
Have to imagine that with modern SAM's, the threat of top attack bombs/munitions is rather limited.
>>28454692
>Ban Facebook and reddit for all deployed personnel.
You've never been on a ship, have you?
Primary armament is a single "cannon" that consists of 8 rail guns. 4 columns or railguns double stacked. Powered by a nuclear reactor dedicated to them.
The deck of the ship will be an airstrip for an X-47 variant designed as a precision bomber.
Defensive armament will feature CIWS and lasers in almost excessive amounts.
The ship will have an additional nuclear reactor for powering all other operations that aren't railgun related.
The hangar should accommodate at least 6 X-47s, 2 of which would be dedicated for defensive purposes, the other four could be used offensively.
>>28454477
>invest at least 25% of that into new metallurgy for missile-proof hulls
>make it super-massive, at least 4 reactors
>missiles, missiles everywhere
>let's take advantage of displacement, and get some REAL FUCKING RADAR on this bitch
>still probably a trillion left, let's make this bitch quiet, sneaky, and stealthy. Also fast as fuck.
>plenty of BRRRRRTT power
>experimental 400mm chain guns
>>28455465
for 2 trillion, why not both?
>>28455055
Bullets rip through paper too, whats your point?
If that was a BB, not even a modern one with active defences, the explosion would have ended at the beginning by the impact point.
>>28455637
Destroyers being made of sheet metal is a myth: they're rated to at least withstand 20 mm after an akbar nearly sunk one of them with a bomb boat.
>>28458599
yeah but in the terms of naval warfare we're speaking of, something rated to withstand pretty much a bofors gun really isn't shit
>>28455708
only 4 point defence?
Its a modern BB bud, we need to exceed russian number at least.. SO, 8 updated Goalkeepers + 8 Laser CIWS, minimum.
>>28454477
>>you have access to all previous BB class ship designs and all weapons systems currently in use
>>you have a $2 trillion dollar budget for this prototype
here it comes. Behold my stealth, high caliber equipped USS Tyrann....
>>must follow some common sense, no giant hovercrafts or submarines
oh
why no subs? :(
>>28455281
Looks like a Russian P-800 Oniks or Brahmos (Indian bought P-800)
Those things are nasty and something western intelligence analysts are very concerned about. They can also act in squadrons where one missile will direct the others.
VLS launchers might be a nice monolithic reliable and safe solution for a destroyer, but an arsenal ship meant for routine land bombardment missions ought to move to a more flexible and space-efficient magazine-transporter-launch system.
There would be large preparation and storage areas where unprepared missiles would be assembled and armed, a re-useable spacer/feed canister racking system for ready to fire missiles, and the final conveyer belt unracking the canisters and feeding a single cold-gas boosted breech-fed non-vertical tube. The tube like an overpowered automatic version of today's torpedo launchers.
>>28455206
>A fighter hitting the side of a ship is conpletely different from a missile. Youre a fucking idiot for even thinking theyre remotely close to the same intensity of an impact.
It's not fighter, but dive bomber and it carried 250kg bomb that is very comparable to warheads of majority of modern anti-ship missiles. It's heavier than cruise missiles and it's mass compensates for lack of speed when it comes to kinetic impact.
>>28455788
But we maintain an enormous fleet for amphibious invasions. It's kind of lol how much /k/ shits on the battleship concept (or any sort of gunboat) for being a useless waste of money because all it can do is tank hits, provide unparalleled bombardment capabilities, and otherwise have the capabilities of a CG. While at the same time we have dozens of amphibious ships, who's cost and manpower needs aren't substantially less than a battleship in many classes, while their capabilities haven't been utilized in 70 years.
Not arguing that we need to bring back the Iowa class or anything, just poking fun at how irrational /k/'s pseudo intellectual assertions have become.
>>28459047
I don't know why the navy bothers building those amphibious ships at all
They turn them into 2 billion dollar 5th gen boondoggles too.
When all they really need is armored LST's
>>28459092
you could spend that 2 billion on battlesheeps
>>28455708
Catamarans are shit.
>>28459118
with a catamaran you are stuck with jetski-esque propulsion. that does not work for a battleship. plus all you gotta do is target one of the hulls with even a 5 inch gun and the whole thing is fucked
>>28454477
I would make a fuckhuge missile cruiser because as cool as artillery is missiles can do the job better
>Still mouthwatering over gunboats with max of 40 km battery range
>Not choosing modern destroyers with 500km+ km AShM range that still exceeds future 200 mile railgun tech
>>28459092
That's the conclusion I came to. Either we don't need most of this giant amphibious fleet, or having a few battle cruiser/heavy cruiser platforms capable of filling the CG escort role most of the time, and providing unparalleled firepower for amphibious landings when needed isn't all that wasteful...given how much we're willing to piss away for unused amphibious capability anyway.
>>28459290
One of the biggest problems is that doctrinally, the Marine corps and Navy are fundamentally incapable of actually doing an amphibious invasion.
They can't land troops
They can't supply troops
The idea of just air assaulting with light infantry is fantasy against anyone with a basic air defense system.
>>28459368
> the Marine corps and Navy are fundamentally incapable of actually doing an amphibious invasion.
and thats why the Army conducted D-Day
>>28454477
Since the primary purpose of a modern battleship would be land bombardment and not anti-ship warfare I would throw out all the previous conventions of BB ships.
>make it a small and stealthy ship
>catamaran or trimaran so it can operate in littoral waters and get close to the shore line to maximize its potential firing range.
>carry a single rail gun and bare essential point defense systems (mainly relying on stealth for protection)
>very fast with high acceleration
>small crew requirement as possible
>would dash into the enemy littoral zone and fire off a railgun round before dashing back out into the safety of open water before being spotted
>recharge batteries for the rail gun and repeat
Probably not what most people are thinking when they thing "battleship" I know.
>>28459418
What would they name it, the USS Inglewood?
>>28459254
>implying cold war relics like the harpoon would actually be able hit a modern ship
good one anon.
>>28459368
>Can't land troops
>Can't supply troops
The US has 8 Wasp class assault ships, each able to land a MEU with full support. They aren't remotely limited to light infantry or air assault, and can carry a large complement of landing craft.
There's no force on earth that could keep them from securing a beachhead when supported by the US navy.
>>28459457
>naming vessels after cities
How boring and unoriginal.
>>28459470
>Implying we're not moving on in AShM development
pic related
>>28459047
>irrational /k/'s pseudo intellectual assertions
Fuck off nigger
Our own reasoning is backed by every navy and DoD in the world. We've told you time and time again. There's a reason why nobody and literally nobody is doing this.
Not once have you backed your own assertions with posting a study or any form of white paper. You are the same retard that tried to use commodity steel prices as a way measuring the material cost of the ship, which frankly goes to show how clueless you are about this subject.
So fuck off for setting us out to be the unreasonable ones here.
>>28459500
>Ship designed to do drive-by's
>Named after a city plagued by drive-by's
I thought it was pretty humorous and original.
>>28459498
Sure m8, and since the Navy doesn't want their ships to go closer than 100 miles to an enemy shore
How many days would it take them to land that MEU?
How many hours of fighting will they carry in supplies?
>>28454477
Imagine a battleship with a giant lightsaber on the front!
I would stab other countries to death!
>>28459562
The navy wouldn't be landing in heavy contested beachhead in the first place.
>>28459591
To actually land more forces and supply them, you need ports and harbors, not beachs.
Of course you aren't landing at a heavily contested beach, but it'll still be GARRISONED by some amount of troops/tanks.
You'll need to be able to defeat these asap, and bring in follow on troops immediately, or the whole invasion will be a failure.
>>28459630
I'm not sure why you are trying you aruge something I didn't say.
But the beachhead comes before the (assuming they are well protected) ports and harbors.
>>28459656
If it's undefended it's because it would be useless to land there.
If the US wants to put thousands of light infantry on a beach, they are welcome to it, those infantry will turn into captives when t he enemy forces show up in a day or two.
>>28459687
I disagree.
There's plenty of reasons why OPFOR may have left a city with a limited or minimum force there to protect it.
And lol okay? I'm not sure why the marines would be such a pushover to you but whatever.
>>28459727
They lost the first battle of fallujah
How could they win vs china ?
We're not talking about raids, or COIN, we're talking about an actual war that will see armored divisions responding to your invasions.
