Can someone explain to me why anti-ship missiles are considered so deadly? I thought in war, ships would hit each other with shells that were much larger and had more explosives in them, and AP shells could penetrate through armor belts.
>>28465341
HE is more destructive than a big chunk of steel like those cannon shells
Things like exocets or harpoons wouldn't do anything to a battleship though.
>>28465341
>Comparing only warhead weight of a missile to total weight of a shell
>Comparing a battleship's shell to a lighter weight missile like an Exocet
Why are such bullshit threads not instantly deleted?
>>28465352
>Things like exocets or harpoons wouldn't do anything to a battleship though.
Tell me then admiral, why don't we see battleships being used then?
>>28465379
Because naval aviation.
>>28465362
Ususally with HE, the filler weight is 50%. So fine, it's only 850lbs of HE. How is that less deadly than 364lbs?
>>28465341
>I thought in war, ships would hit each other with shells
The era of big ship engagements is over. Never again will two flotillas of large ships stand off and shell each other to conclusion. The smallest vessel can destroy the largest with an ASM now.
>>28465397
Can a Somali fishing boat with a bunch of guys with RPGs take out a Yamato class ship?
>>28465386
that too, but Exocets and Harpoons can penetrate the armor of battleships.
>>28465402
With swarm tactics, maybe.
>>28465387
>Ususally with HE, the filler weight is 50%. So fine, it's only 850lbs of HE.
Never, ever post again please. You clearly have no idea of the actual construction of 16" shells and think they're like bombs.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm
>Bursting Charge HC Mark 14 - 153.6 lbs. (69.67 kg)
>>28465402
Only if the RPG can magically turn into a ASM mid-flight. Also the fishing craft would have to have guidance systems and a crew trained to operate them. A tad bit more difficult.
>>28465387
>How is that less deadly than 364lbs?
Because one can be ripple fired off a flight of aircraft 400nmi away from their carrier or base, or from small missile-carrying ships, flying a further ~70nmi to target with a high degree of accuracy.
The other goes 20nmi at maximum range with questionable accuracy
>>28465402
>implying Somali fishing boats can into space
>>28465402
Attack the Yamato at night.
>>28465341
>Enemy ship fires Missile from beyond visual range of battleship
>Missile impacts bridge
>Destroys buttloads of vital systems and communication lines and setting shit on fire yo
>Battleship becomes floating casket
>>28465402
High speed boats could with stand off laser guided ATGMs like Kornet stay far enough away that no gun with both the range to hit it and the tracking/rof to actually hit it would be effective. They could then target specifically each main gun, penetrate straight through the face of each (the thickest armor ever mounted to a ship) and wreck each turret and turn Yamato from a fighting ship to the world's biggest yacht.
>>28465422
>The other goes 20nmi at maximum range with questionable accuracy
and shitty trajectory. if a shell hit a ship at the wrong angle it would simply break up without detonation.
>>28465458
Good luck aiming a beam riding missile from a boat with any kind of accuracy
>>28465458
Good luck hitting that exact turret on a boat from 8km
not to mention that by the time you built a new one, missiles would have newer, larger ap warheads to compensate. and everyone would probably go supersonic just for extra fuck you.
>>28465414
jesus, that's fucking nothing. i never knew that.
bb blown the fuck out.
>>28465379
Because no armor will survive a nuke
It's also a doctrinal thing. A "carrier mafia", if you will.
>>28465505
it's also an airpower thing. an 'i can outrange the fuck out of you and all your defenses', if you will.
>>28465341
> why anti-ship missiles are considered so deadly?
Oh, I wonder. Lets take a look:
>>28465505
I guess all surface ships are obsolete then.
>>28465473
>>28465497
It's called "stabilization." The turret face is much bigger than a tank face.
>>28465524
Surface ships with armor designed to do anything but catch splinters sure are. Modern "destroyers" are the size of WWII cruisers, but carry nothing like the protection they did.
>>28465505
>no armor will survive a nuke
That really depends.
>>28465518
That's fucking awesome
>>28465537
The Zumwalt is the size of a WW2 battleship in terms of volume.
>>28465524
no.
bb defenders have some dumb fucking idea in their heads that modern ships, especially american ships, are defenseless. it's quite the opposite. they are much better defended and hard to kill than any battleship, period. this is because you think battleships were well defended. the fact is they were passively defended, because armor is always a passive defense. modern warships are now actively defended, using active defense systems.
basically, they've exchanged passive defense (shit) for active defense (great) and once you get this concept into your head a lot of stuff suddenly makes sense.
>>28465352
is this a new meme or just one dedicated autist?
>>28465512
Aircraft are not free, carriers are not free.
Surface ships can be built tougher, stronger, with superior weaponry than aircraft.
With a similar amount of funding that an F-35 gets, you could design a mostly submerged surface ship with an above portion undetectable on radar/IR/whatever.
Carriers are aimed, not at naval fights, but at hitting land targets.
>>28465560
No it isn't.
>>28465537
>aegis
>standard family of missiles
>sea sparrow
>sea-RAM
>nothing like the protection of ww2 cruisers
lol what the fuck am i reading
>>28465569
>With a similar amount of funding that an F-35 gets, you could design a mostly submerged surface ship with an above portion undetectable on radar/IR/whatever.
It's incredible the stupidity battleship threads bring to the light.
>>28465579
>Any fucking idiot can see that "protection" in this context clearly means armor, not every method of defense but I'd rather be a nitpicking fuck
Congradulations on your autism.
>>28465586
Why do you think the zumwalt is stealthed? AShM's still rely on radar to find their targets and hit them.
Build ships like icebergs, with 90% below 10% above, and suddenly they are immune to AShM's.
>>28465567
One very dedicated autist, like armored train guy
>>28465569
>armored gunship/submarine carrier guy detected.
>>28465574
It's close to smaller BBs like the Nelson-class or the Queen Elizabeth class.
>>28465595
The stupidity is just unfathomable.
>>28465595
You're retarded.
I'm sorry that its not terminal.
>>28465595
Why not 100% below?
>>28465505
tell that the Prinz Eugen
>>28465379
Because a billion dollars spent on a battleship gets you one ship to do one mission with like a 60% readiness rate, or you can make 10 ships to do 6 missions 100% of the time.
And because immunity to ASMs isn't immunity to gravity bombs or torpedoes.
>>28465611
>>28465617
Suppose the US fleet had 300 burkes instead of carriers + their fighters
Would their fleet be stronger or weaker?
>>28465595
are you a slav or something?
>>28465632
300 burkes would be far more expensive than the current fleet.
But your answer is weaker.
>>28465632
Weaker. Exchanging a battle proven technology for one that isn't is foolish.
>>28465557
The ship was probably filled with explosives and exploded on trigger
Thats what they do for these tests, prevents any embarassments.
>>28465569
>Aircraft are not free, carriers are not free.
battelships are cheap are they? maybe you need to get some learnin'
>Surface ships can be built tougher, stronger, with superior weaponry than aircraft.
what the fuck does this even mean. the issue is not that a surface ship outguns an individual aircraft, it's that one aircraft can easily pack enough death to kill any single surface ship. now stack a carrier air wing of shit-kicking and the firepower of a battleship means nothing, particuly in naval combat.
battleships are passive. you can stack all the motherfucking missiles you want on that bitch (didn't work too well though, too much vibrartion from those guns of yours), but guess what? you will never outrange airpower. that aircraft can shoot at you from much further off and you can't touch it, which means you can't go on the offensive, and that means that you're immediately on the defensive, and the initiative immediately goes to the guy with the airpower. unless you can match it with your airpower (this includes awacs, by the way). for which you're going to need carriers. plus, they can also bomb the fuck out of land targets anyway.
and this is why battleships are no longer a thing. it's not hard to understand but m-m-muh armor and m-m-muh gunz.
again, it's not to understand. if you're willing to stop and think about it for half a second.
>>28465512
no they cant outrange enemy ships. the carrier can, but the carrier is not the one launching ASMs. The aircraft have to get within ASM range, and that means getting within AA range.
>>28465592
>any fucking idiot can see that in the light of active defense systems already mentions that passive defense become redundant and useless
who is the fucking autist here? me, or you, the guy resolutely sticking to the most narrow and out of date definition of the word 'protection'.
i don't give a fuck what you think that word means. your precious flower terms of endearment are fucking meaningless. your lack of comprehension of modern technology and what 'protection' actually means is your fucking problem you basement dwelling autistic cunt.
why the fuck am i going to use 10 000 tons of passive armor that any russian missile can cut through like a knife through butter and not 1000 tons of active protection that actually stands a chance of stopping the threat?
you're fucking stupid. feel ashamed.
>>28465557
it's two harpoon impacting simultaneously if I recall. still, damn impressive
>>28465652
>The aircraft have to get within ASM range, and that means getting within AA range.
Its a lot easier to avoid a SAM in an aircraft than it is to avoid an AShM in a surface ship.
>>28465607
yeah. that guy again.
>>28465648
>what the fuck does this even mean.
A vehicle that floats on the surface of the ocean can mount bigger/more weapons, armor, counter measures, radar, etc than an aircraft.
>now stack a carrier air wing of shit-kicking and the firepower of a battleship means nothing, particuly in naval combat.
Except you'll have 4 battleships weighing more, carrying more missiles, and will probably be immune to 90% of your air wings weapons anyways.
>that aircraft can shoot at you from much further off and you can't touch it
This is blatantly false, the ships missiles will always outrange an aircrafts.
Further, if we are talking about AWAC's
Seaplanes could easily replace the need for expensive carriers.
>>28465682
>why the fuck am i going to use 10 000 tons of passive armor
Because then you can use a naval version of ERA & APS that tanks have shown will stop missiles 99% of the time?
>>28465687
a ship should be able to launch much faster, longer ranged missiles than a aircraft though, given that a aircraft has a much lower payload.
Its just that tech never went in that direction because of muh carriers.
>>28465341
missiles have guidance. Much higher hit rates than unguided shells. Complex warheads are also more potent than solid steel AP shells or even AP shells with an explosive warhead. Much greater range too. ASM's have over-horizon capability, up to hundreds of miles. Shells are limited to around 40-50 miles at most.
There are countermeasures of course, but it's to the point where they don't really bother with armor on ships anymore because you'd need insane amounts to stop a modern ASM warhead.
>>28465646
>all evidence counter to my agenda is a conspiracy!
Yep, definitely a slav.
>>28465652
No, because the ASM launches with a big V boost from the aircraft's speed at launch, and it launches from altitude and descends, instead of launching from sea level and climbing to altitude.
So the ASM, weight for weight, will have more range.
>>28465387
as >>28465414
said, but I'd like to add: stop comparing with shit old small subsonic missiles. Exocets aren't a real threat anymore for any first world navy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-700_Granit
Try this. 7 tonnes of supersonic fun, with a lot of guidance tricks, and 750 kg (1,653 lb) of HE filler.
Russian subs can carry 24 of these motherfuckers and, afaik, if a salvo is fired at a carrier, there's no way it'll survive. One will get through, and its all that it takes. (You might ask "hurrr durrr then why do carriers even exist - surface ships are fragile but incredibly useful, so they're fucking well protected, not only by weapons, but also by "if you sink this we'll glass your country".)
Happy? Realize why this shit is dangerous? You're welcome.
>>28465702
>a ship should be able to launch much faster, longer ranged missiles than a aircraft though, given that a aircraft has a much lower payload.
The ship doesn't have the advantage of launching at 30,000ft at Mach 2.
Nor does it have the speed or agility to avoid such large, bulky missiles.
>>28465699
>battleship immune to air attack
>implying BBs haven't been getting wrecked by planes since WWII
>repulse+prince of wales
>yamato
>musashi
a modern BB would get raped up the ass by aircraft-borne ASMs. Hard. Countermeasures can only do so much.
>>28465685
P270 Moskit, found the video. Double tapping the ship happens around 1:00.
https://youtu.be/BvigKyp_hcs
>>28465458
We established this the other night, yes ATGM missiles would be able to penetrate an Iowa Battleship regardless of where it hit. The turrets at 17" or the superstructure/bridge at 17.3" (thickest on Iowa) can both be penned by "common" modern ATGM's. Where the dilemma is that almost all of these missiles would only cause about a 1-2" pin hole in the armor and unless it had a perfect hit where it got something explosive or flammable on the other side would do little to no real damage to the ship.
Math and structural force simulations were also done in regards to the LRASM against the Iowa belt armor I believe and found it would do fuck all to it with publicly revealed specifications.
Now we also did math and something like a GBU-28 would handedly go through and detonate if it hit with a chance of actually going completely through the armor layers and exiting the bottom based on what date you use (EFP vs Balistic penetration ratios of RHA to Concrete)
Now going along with the GBU-28 that had a entire span of 3 weeks from drawing board to first bomb on target, it would NOT take long for a modern country to convert or create a proper "Anti-Armor ASM"
>>28465627
>tell that the Prinz Eugen
it moored over a kilometer away from both blasts, on of which was an airburst, and which were only in the tens of kilotons anyway. the contamination would have killed the crew.
you think that soviet missiles had warheads that small, and were that inaccurate? i fucking lol'd.
>>28465699
>naval version of ERA
Confirmed Vatnik or just reglar baitposter.
>>28465560
Learn to math....
Iowa Class
887x108x35
58,000 Tonnes
Zumwalt
600x80x27
15,500 Tonnes
>>28465699
Radar horizon; this alone will reduce a warship's ability to detect aircraft at range to such a significant degree that they will not be able to target an aircraft carrying any modern ASM before it has already launched the weapon and turned around.
>>28465721
yeah the granit has some crazy guidance. a volley of them can actually fly in formation with one popping up to track the target, datalinking the rest, all sharing info. If leader gets hit by anti-missile missiles, another takes over. The rest stay undetected by flying extremely low and hypersonic.
Never actually tested in a battle, but awesome concept.
>>28465714
No, Slavs fucking love ASMs. What we have here is some kind of "naval-fudd", if you will.
>>28465746
Learn to read?
>>28465608
>>28465721
Supersonic sea skimming missiles have serious problems actually finding & hitting targets.
Theres a reason the US doesn't build them.
Also bigger missiles are less maneuverable & easier to spot + intercept.
>>28465652
>no they cant outrange enemy ships.
you dumb cunt.
>the carrier can
this isn't a computer game. the carrier doesn't use weapons of it's own.
you can't actually strike at the carrier because of this, which means you have to wait for those missiles to come to you. so you're on the defensive, so you're lost the initiative and you're dead, dead, dead.
>>28465756
How does the aircraft spot the warship, if its not in LOS of radar?
>>28465782
Except the sattelite support informs the BB's of the approximate location of the carriers
Swarms of UAV's finds the exact location, and a salvo of 500 AShM's erases that carrier from existance.
>>28465794
You realized you answered your own stupid question, right
>>28465794
>Swarms of UAV's finds the exact location
lmao
>>28465777
>have serious problems actually finding & hitting targets.
doubt.jpg
It's not rocket science (HEH IT ACTUALLY IS), you surface your sub at the closest possible range from the carrier group, fire 12 missiles at the carrier, satellite guidance takes in, then radars, goodbye. Even without crazy guidance there's really no way to reliably stop all 12 with just SeaRAMs
The webm of that tomahawk hitting a container sized target comes to mind.
>Theres a reason the US doesn't build them.
And that reason is the US Navy. Why build highly advanced sea skimmers when theres literally no navy that couldn't just be sinked by other means.
The same reason why the US doesn't build crazy anti air SAM systems, they don't need to when you have such a huge air force.
>>28465341
Mostly, range and accuracy. You might fire off a dozen rounds at 18 km and never hit a thing. However, an anti-ship missile could fire at ten times that range and hit ever time if the enemy did nothing.
>>28465699
Torpedo?
>>28465818
>sinked
Aaaah, sunk.
>>28465818
>Even without crazy guidance there's really no way to reliably stop all 12 with just SeaRAMs
You really think the Carrier is defending itself with SeaRAMs? Do you know what a CSG is and why it operates in that fashion?
Who am I kidding, of course you don't.
>>28465814
So then this range advantage you are talking about for carriers does not actually exist.
And a guided missile battleship would objectively be superior to a carrier, any day of the week.
Not to mention, aircraft do not carry these 7+ ton AShM's
>>28465794
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_horizon
An aircraft can spot a ship from a high altitude using a long range surface search radar, while the ship gets an emission and a bearing. This was what made the Tu-22M such a pain for the navy, they'd see you from so far away and then launch Kh-22's, then dive and use afterburners all the way home. This was one of the reasons the F-14 and its crazy pheonix missiles even existed.
>>28465699
>A vehicle that floats on the surface of the ocean can mount bigger/more weapons, armor, counter measures, radar, etc than an aircraft.
>>28465648
>the issue is not that a surface ship outguns an individual aircraft, it's that one aircraft can easily pack enough death to kill any single surface ship.
can't read, can you faggot.
>Except you'll have 4 battleships weighing more, carrying more missiles, and will probably be immune to 90% of your air wings weapons anyways.
only in your fantasy land.
>This is blatantly false, the ships missiles will always outrange an aircrafts.
no they won't, because they're launched from the surface, not from altitude with forwards airspeed. why do i have to explain this.
>Seaplanes could easily replace the need for expensive carriers.
all of my what.
you know why seaplanes only see limited use? something about having to launch off the water on an ocean and swell and something something....
you're a kid aren't you?
>Because then you can use a naval version of ERA & APS that tanks have shown will stop missiles 99% of the time?
if i have active defense i don't need it to begin wtih fucking hell what is wrong with your brain.
and shown to stop man-carry anti-tank missiles. not maverick and sure as fuck not moskit. what kind of era do you think would stop a 3 ton missile with a 750kg charge hitting supersonic.
FUCK.
just fuck.
>>28465843
>So then this range advantage you are talking about for carriers does not actually exist.
Yes..
Yes it does
>>28465839
Alright I really don't know.
Aside from the obvious answer, which is jets to intercept the missiles (which wouldn't work when you got seconds to intercept 12 missiles fired from close range.) what else is there? All that I know is that the us is "developing", but nothing is fielded.
>>28465861
>which is jets to intercept the missiles
fucking lel, no.
Really, stop going on this board, or at least threads you don't know anything about and asserting your hot opinions.
The answer your looking for is that a CSG includes destroyers and frigates. Both equipped with missiles and their own defense systems.
>>28465877
>fucking lel, no.
Then you're the ignorant fuck, it already happened, its not some special shit.
>The answer your looking for is that a CSG includes destroyers and frigates. Both equipped with missiles and their own defense systems.
Then trim your edges and answer me: which missiles are those?
>>28465794
my head just exploded.
>Except the sattelite support informs the BB's of the approximate location of the carriers
BUT THE CARRIERS DON'T HAVE THIS SUPPORT, AND DON'T HAVE AWACS? THE USN IS SUDDENLY NOT A THING ANYMORE? WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU SMOKE?
>Swarms of UAV's finds the exact location, and a salvo of 500 AShM's erases that carrier from existanc
HOW THE FUCK ARE YOU GOING TO LAUNCH THEM? BECAUSE IF YOU WANT A LONG RANGED AIRCRAFT YOU NEED A STRIP AND A CATAPAULT TO LAUNCH THEM FROM.
YOU CAN'T LAUNCH ASMS FROM UCAVS SMALL ENOUGH TO STEP OFF THE BACK OF A NON-CARRIER AND WITH ENOUGH RANGE TO OUT RANGE THE AIRCRAFT, LET ALONE THE CAP, OF A FUCKING CARRIER BATTLE GROUP.
YOU WORTHLESS FUCKING CUNT.
yes, i am mad.
>>28465849
>no they won't, because they're launched from the surface, not from altitude with forwards airspeed. why do i have to explain this.
Which is why we launch rockets to space from aircraft, yes?
Oh wait, thats all just energy, solved by putting more fuel in the missile.
>you know why seaplanes only see limited use?
Because doctrine.
>what kind of era do you think would stop a 3 ton missile with a 750kg charge hitting supersonic.
The EFP's from APS and the explosion from ERA would splatter inbound missiles. Meaning it's not going to do shit to the armor.
>>28465912
You're arguing against 70 years of naval doctrine.
Protip, you aren't winning.
>>28465899
Would you like me to spoonfeed you a list?
fuck off
>>28465902
>HOW THE FUCK ARE YOU GOING TO LAUNCH THEM?
what is vtol?
>BECAUSE IF YOU WANT A LONG RANGED AIRCRAFT YOU NEED A STRIP AND A CATAPAULT TO LAUNCH THEM FROM.
Not true, if you want a high speed maneuverable fighter you need carriers.
But just for being an AShM truck you could use VTOL or CATOVL
The missiles carried by these aircraft could not pierce the armor of a battleship either.
>BUT THE CARRIERS DON'T HAVE THIS SUPPORT, AND DON'T HAVE AWACS?
If both have same support, then the larger missiles carried by a BB will outrange & outnumber whatever the carrier carries.
>>28465912
Its more efficient to launch aircraft launched ASMs compared to ship launched for many reasons. one being you can launch from many unexpected directions forcing an enemy fleet into a posture that does not allow them to put all their strength (including defensive capabilities) into one direction. Smaller missiles are also easier to produce and arm their respective platform, ei. its easier to get 2 harpoons from the factory and on an F-18 than it is to get P-700s from the plant to the cruiser.
>>28465960
>If both have same support, then the larger missiles carried by a BB will outrange & outnumber whatever the carrier carries.
see
>>28465722
For why you're a mouthbreather.
>>28465818
>Get your sub close and fire 12 missiles
Out of what, genius? There's no non-US sub that could launch 12 sea-skimming curse missiles that isn't a LOUD AS FUCK boomer.
>>28465912
>Which is why we launch rockets to space from aircraft, yes?
>Oh wait, thats all just energy, solved by putting more fuel in the missile.
OH MY FUCKING GOD
YOU'RE FUCKING KIDDING ME
YOU EXPECT TO MAKE AN INTERCEPTOR THAT LARGE AND STILL BE ABLE TO PUT THEM ON ANY SHIP IN ENOUGH NUMBERS TO EFFECTIVELY DEFEND YOUR SHIP. DON'T TELL ME THAT YOU SERIOUSLY THINK THAT.
lol, you're actually a fucking idiot.
you're talking about something like a trident d5? which weighs nearly 60 tons?
you realise that 90% of that fuel is just to get the fucking thing off the ground, don't you?
you know why the waverider is air launched? you know that skylon is using an air-breathing engine to get airborne before turning on the rocket? you don't know shit!
>The EFP's from APS and the explosion from ERA would splatter inbound missiles. Meaning it's not going to do shit to the armor.
do you comprehend the size required to stop a p-700 granite?
>7000kg
>that's 7 fucking metric tons
>mach 1.6-2.5
>so topping out at nearly 3000kph
>750kg he warhead of 500kt thermonuclear warhead
>500kt thermonuclear warhead
>jesus fucking christ.
you live in a fantasy world. the blocks required, simply by weight alone, would be enormous. too fucking heavy to put anything else on your ship. NOT TO MENTION THE INTERFERENCE WITH HYDRODYNAMIC FLOW AROUND THE HULL. ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU STARTED LOSING THEM. NOT THAT THEY WOULD STOP A FUCKING ASM ANYWAY.
you need to understand something. simply saying something (The EFP's from APS and the explosion from ERA would splatter inbound missiles. Meaning it's not going to do shit to the armor.) doesn't make it real.
>>28465991
>loud as fuck boomers can't be found by the entire US atlantic sea Sonar network + french naval aviation and british ships.
Better drop another 50,000 sonar buoys into the atlantic.
>>28465948
No, just that afaik the most capable ones in service... Are SeaRAMs. Soo we go back to what I said earlier. Dipshit.
>>28465991
Real sub and anti sub capabilities are so classified I wouldn't dare to argue for or against this scenario. Let's just say it might be possible?
Going to sleep now. Gnight.
>>28466026
>No, just that afaik the most capable ones in service... Are SeaRAMs. Soo we go back to what I said earlier. Dipshit.
SeaRAMs are not more capable than RIM-162 ESSM. Sleep tight, chucklefuck
>>28465976
>Its more efficient to launch aircraft launched ASMs compared to ship launched for many reasons.
Any modern AShM can be given way points to fly, allowing multiple AShM salvos to approach simulaneously from different directions.
>Smaller missiles are also easier to produce and arm their respective platform
Thats really not true, at all. Battleships would be stocked in docks with cranes and whatnot.
Carriers load their fighters one by one, by hand.
>>28465981
If launching a missile from 30,000 feet and mach 2 is truly the proper & optimal way to do it
Then all surface missiles would have 2 stages, stage 1 to carry them up to 30,000 feet & mach 2.
Of course we don't do that, since this extra velocity is easily gained by making the missile bigger.
>>28466026
Look up "AEGIS" and "Standard SM-1" and start there. Finish much, much later.
Sweet dreams, pookie
>>28465960
>what is vtol?
a severely limited concept that greatly reduces the range and the payload of the aircraft employing it. which means your tiny as fuck aircraft takes another massive hit to range and payload. why does everything need to be explained to you?
>Not true, if you want a high speed maneuverable fighter you need carriers.
>But just for being an AShM truck you could use VTOL or CATOVL
my head is starting to hurt. none of this is true.
>The missiles carried by these aircraft could not pierce the armor of a battleship either.
a hellfire can pierce the armor of a battleship.
>If both have same support, then the larger missiles carried by a BB will outrange & outnumber whatever the carrier carries.
you've already had this explained to you. multiple times. you have simply decided not to believe it.
fuck off retard. there is no value in you or what you do. you're just a retard. you get nothing.
>>28465607
>>28465689
NOPE. NOT ME.
I just found this thread, and I'm lurking
^_____^
>>28466041
You.... you are Falklands Container Ship Invasion anon, aren't you?
>>28465732
3 weeks might be all you need, though.
Hence, why armor isn't irrelevant.
3 weeks of having a ship the enemy can't sink with existing munitions is a nice advantage.
>>28466041
>Then all surface missiles would have 2 stages, stage 1 to carry them up to 30,000 feet & mach 2.
Some do. They're called a booster you silly shit.
Theres also the fact that by making that missile so large, you've negated its ability to hit a manouvering aircraft. Hitting ships imposes no such difficulty, especially BB sized things.
>>28466041
>Thats really not true, at all. Battleships would be stocked in docks with cranes and whatnot.
in dock.
>Carriers load their fighters one by one, by hand.
while underway.
>Of course we don't do that,
standard missiles are multistage missiles. all long range sam are.
>since this extra velocity is easily gained by making the missile bigger.
except it's not because of the differential change in mass and rocket fuel. which is exactly why it is never done.
and it's not just ceiling, it's ceiling and range.
your ignorance knows no bounds.
>>28466053
and you'd better stay that way, fucko.
>>28466081
You dont need a direct hit considering aircraft are minially armored anyway.
>>28466076
>3 weeks of having a ship the enemy can't sink with existing munitions is a nice advantage.
HOW THE FUCK ARE YOU GOING TO BUILD A FUCKING BATTLESHIP IN THREE WEEKS
HOW THE FUCK ARE YOU GOING TO KEEP THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOMETHING THAT SIZE SECRET
SEA TRIALS TAKE MORE THAN THREE WEEKS
FUCK YOU
GET FUCKED
GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE
>>28466128
expanding rod warheads only give you so much leeway.
>>28466007
A: What carrier borne fighters are carrying P-700 granites?
B: Do you comprehend that a missile which has been shattered by multiple EFP's, and is just a pile of HE/light frame, will have terrible armor penetration? Assuming it even detonates.
>you realise that 90% of that fuel is just to get the fucking thing off the ground, don't you?
A battleship mounting anti-ship tridents with KE projectiles that impact at mach 24 would be superior to ANY aircraft launched AShM
>nukes
Don't be a retard
Battleship armor was built to take hits from 1 ton projectiles of solid steel, moving at mach 2.
>>28466128
you don't understand
with something that size, you're not hitting anything that moves.
anything.
at all.
why don't you stop wasting our time and go read a book nigger.
>>28466041
>Then all surface missiles would have 2 stages, stage 1 to carry them up to 30,000 feet & mach 2.
True, good missile designers make them go mach 3, like the 2 stage TOR missile.
Or the Brahmos, which with it's mach 2.7 speed and 46,000 feet ceiling.
>>28466150
>something fired at mach 2, impacts at mach 2 without any additional energy transfer.
>>28465899
SM-2/SM-3's in VLS launchers for long range AA and missile interception, CWIS for close-in AA Harpoon for anti-ship, Tomahawk for anti-any surface target unlucky enough not to have it's own AA defense, and 5" gun with a surprisingly good ability to hit air targets
>>28466081
A missile carrying several AIM-9x's would hit 9 times out of 10.
>>28466110
>while underway.
From munition they got while in port, aka same thing.
>which is exactly why it is never done.
It's done all the time. What the hell do you think a fighter is? Just slapping more fuel onto a missile is VERY CHEAP compared to building a 100 million dollar fighter to carry it.
The fighter essentially doubles as a super expensive "booster" in this context.
>>28466017
Oscars never go to sea anymore because after 1998 they were being constantly shadowed by attack submarines that weren't even bothering to be very discreet.
Granted, the poor bastards selected to crew an Oscar these days would likely welcome having a 688 following them to render distress when the Oscar fucks up or explodes itself.
In theory, a Yasen is fully capable of launching 32 P-800 at once, though with Russian launch systems and the complexity of the Oniks to try and do so would be suicidal for several reasons.
First, surfacing within 80 kilometers of a carrier puts it well inside the patrolled area of the group. Launch or not, the Russian Federation would be sending their only Yasen class submarine into oblivion to make the attack.
Second.. if you launch 32 P-800, 3-5 are going to explode more or less immediately. Trying to launch 32 at once would risk the vessel and the strike being lost to fratricide.
Ok, having sought treatment for my aneurysm I got from reading this thread, I've come back for another look and want to applaud AShM-BB anon for high quality bait
>>28466199
>I know how russian submarines and missiles that has never been exported works.
Putin why are you here trying to make your own country's missiles look bad?
This reminds me of another thread.
>This entire thread
>>28466189
>A missile carrying several AIM-9x's would hit 9 times out of 10.
fucking genius why hasn't this been done before?!
>>28466164
Well there are tradeoffs. Launching from the surface and skimming the surface makes it harder to see it coming and target it with countermeasures.
But it also means you have to fight gravity constantly, rather then trade height for speed, and you are plowing though the thickest air possible and you start with no velocity. This is why a cruise missile might have 500 kilometers of range launched from a high speed and altitude aircraft and 70 kilometers launched from a surface ship.
>>28466150
>What carrier borne fighters are carrying P-700 granites?
goddamn fuck. the mere existance of the p-700 granite, irrespective of it's launch platform, makes your era system redundant. irrespective of any other system that you also have to contend with.
just fuck. why are you so fucking stupid.
sit down and work out the size of a charge required to turn back the energy even of a lowly harpoon. that's the ke and blast yield. now cover your ship with that and still expect to get it through the water forwards. don't know why that's an issue? because you're a retard and you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. why the fuck do you think the hull of a ship is shaped that way?
and what is the FUCKING point, when active defense can still do the same thing and DO IT FUCKING BETTER? every single one of those blocks will be about the same size as a rim-174. literally what is the point. other than you just want to armor a ship just because.
you realise that active defense is taking that block of era and meeting it with that missile 30km away from your hull where you won't get any damage from it? and where the forwards airspeed of that enemy missile will destroy it after it has become damaged, meaning you don't need as much explosives? so you can have more missiles to shoot down more missiles? and it won't fuck (ie completely stop) with your hydrodynamic flow? because if you wait until its against your hull you have to stop ALL OF THAT ENERGY and that's a big fucking plate.
>B: Do you comprehend that a missile which has been shattered by multiple EFP's, and is just a pile of HE/light frame, will have terrible armor penetration? Assuming it even detonates.
the rest of your post is too retarded for words. you're a retard. no more respect for you.
>>28466284
You really have no fucking idea how ship based missiles work do you?
>>28466189
>It's done all the time
name a long range naval sam that isn't multistage.
>What the hell do you think a fighter is?
ah...what?
>Just slapping more fuel onto a missile is VERY CHEAP compared to building a 100 million dollar fighter to carry it.
fighters have wings you fucking retard. seriously just what the fuck.
just all of my what the fuck. i have lost so much what the fuck in this thread i need to go to the what the fuck store to restock my what the fuck stores.
i've gone through mad. i'm through to the other side. it's full of stars.
>>28466288
>you realise that active defense is taking that block of era and meeting it with that missile 30km away from your hull where you won't get any damage from it?
You realize that both the carrier and the battleship would have this, and that we get no where by magically assuming all missiles will be shot down before they reach their target?
>irrespective of it's launch platform
m8
We're talking BB's vs carriers here, and you are saying battleships suck because a missile exists that carriers can't even fire?
>sit down and work out the size of a charge required to turn back the energy even of a lowly harpoon.
It doesn't need to "turn back".
The missile is destroyed and likely fails to detonate, it would STILL need to pierce the 2 feet of armor behind the ERA.
>>28466131
Well... we've had the Iowa's for years and nobody bothered building missiles that could one shot it.
Even the Russians said they didn't have any missiles that would be appropriate for killing an Iowa.
So.... America has had the armor advantage ever since WW2 ended, and nobody has bothered countering the Iowa's...
So.... you're the retarded one? :)
>>28466343
>name a long range naval sam that isn't multistage.
Except thats what I'm saying, and for the purposes of this discussion, the fighter constitutes an extremely expensive & limiting first stage for the missile.
>>28466356
Kutnetzov class carrier can fire missiles.
>>28466118
I just posted, sorry. I had to reply to someone.
Also, I think 1911s are amazing. The only pistol with a confirmed aircraft kill.
Just so you guys know how trollish my beliefs are :)
>>28466131
He's saying that Anti-Modern-BB weapons would be produced before the first Modern-BB was ever finished, let alone tested to be fit for combat. The ship would literally need to arrive overnight with no warning to have the desired impact, otherwise, it's already dead before it's even born. Even if it did arrive in the most ideal manner, catching all conventional navies off guard, this Modern-BB would still have the ever living shit beaten out of it.
Standard ASMs from carrier borne fighters get a massive boost from them traveling at mach 2 and at high altitude, and in order to even try to match that, any missile the BB uses would have to be fuck-huge to match the offensive range given to a carrier by its fighter complement, only to launch a very small final stage. Which, means it'll only have a handful of shots due to the sheer size. Not only that, but even if the BB had its own battlegroup for point defense, the Carrier and its battlegroup would win out due to logistics alone, as it simply has far more munitions. Where the BB would literally run out of ammo for its fuckhuge missiles, the Carrier only has to survive the initial salvo. After that, it would still be able to launch sorties. In fact, it could very much suck the BB dry of every single load it had like some sort of semon demon. Of course, the carrier and its fighters don't have to actually penetrate the BB either. Blinding it and/or breaking its rudder will do fine too.
After that, the carrier can do whatever she wants to him.
Japanese 8" and 6" cruiser gunfire couldn't penetrate the armor of USS South Dakota at Second Guadalcanal, but it did shoot away her radars and directors, rendering one of our most modern battleships "deaf, dumb and blind" in the words of her commander.
The all or nothing armor scheme used on the modern BBs was fairly good at keeping the ships afloat but shitty at protecting fragile detection and fire control systems that had to be mounted high in the unarmored superstructure to function.
Attempts to mount Sea Sparrow on the Iowas during their refit was abandoned because shock testing at Dahlgren found that the system could not survive the firing of the 16" rifles.
>>28466368
BASED KUTNETZOV CLASS CARRIER
I wish America would ensure its carriers could defend itself without aircraft. Never know what could happen. A dozen VLS tubes would be enough, that's not too much to ask.
>>28466358
But that's the thing. They don't need to. It's far cheaper to use a bunch more of conventional stuff to kill it than to make a weapon to handle a unicorn. And the stuff doesn't even need to fully penetrate. Wrecking its comms, sensors and even its rudder/props does the job fine. Logistics is everything.
>>28466375
This year Raython starts delivering high energy FEL to the navy. Mach 2 seems kind of slow compared to Mach 880,991.
>>28466398
>I wish America would ensure its carriers could defend itself without aircraft.
What do you think the rest of the CSG is for?
That said, without aircraft you're pretty much fucked anyway. No CAP, no AEW, no ASW, so strike ability. At best you're on the defensive. At worst you're tanking wave after wave of AShMs you can't predict the arrival of nor fire back on.
>>28466395
We're in a 5th generational era
A loss of your own sensors is only a small setback, doesn't make you blind.
Obviously, a more durable communication system would need to be developed to ensure it can't be destroyed.
>SM-6: 150nm range
>LRASM: 500nm range
>Surface ships outranging aircraft, ever
130 posts without the correct answer, nice job retards
it's because ASM's have shaped charge warheads. a 2kg rpg can bust through a tank. a 100kg warhead will go through virtually anything
>>28466428
Trouble with lasers is they're short range and take time to destroy a target, especially at such ranges.
The operational goal for LaWS is ONE mile.
>>28466398
Honestly, I think they'd just get in the way of things. I mean, worse case, there's a fighter that's just starting to launch and you fire those VLS tubes. Big, nasty mess. Even with that out of the picture due to how extreme it is, that's wasted space when you could just have more stuff dedicated to the fighters or various other ship subsystems. The fighters themselves are far more useful than whatever omission had to be made to accommodate those tubes, even if it's only a small change to the munitions complement.
>>28466398
what
the whole point of a carrier group is that the carrier will never have to defend itself
the USN has plenty of other far more capable missile carrying boats fucking everywhere, they don't need to load their shit down with missiles
>>28466356
>You realize that both the carrier and the battleship would have this,
have what?
>and that we get no where by magically assuming all missiles will be shot down before they reach their target?
you're magically assuming that you can build an era plate large enough to turn back an ashm and still not stop your ship dead in the water due to mass and flow interference. and not rupture the fucking hull every time it fires. oh wait, you're going to armor the hull as well! congrats, your ship isn't breaking 8 knots.
>We're talking BB's vs carriers here, and you are saying battleships suck because a missile exists that carriers can't even fire?
no we're not. we're talking as to why bb are no longer a thing. the p-700 granite is fired from a surface vessel. go and look up its targetting profiles and see why you're fucked. this is why no one builds bb anymore. they're out-of-date.
as for airborne weaponry, look up broach. it is easy to defeat passive armor. two-stage warheads defeat era. you think you can stop multi-stage 1000lb class warheads with ship borne era do you? you're a fucking retard.
and that's if i don't just decide to cut through your top deck. because i can do that quite easily (plunge has been a thing for decades). gonna armor plate that fucker all over are you?
the reason they're not used is because we don't have to. because no navy in the world is as fucking retarded as you. retarded enough to spend all that money on...fucking nothing at all.
>It doesn't need to "turn back".
that's exactly what it needs to do. you are fucking stupid. it needs to stop the total energy of the ke of the mass plus the yield of the warhead. right against the fucking hull.
you worthless piece of shit.
>2 feet of armor
oh wow, it's fucking nothing.
>>28466398
>half-sunk ski-ramp cruiser
ok, yeah, sure.
>>28466414
"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
Google it! We were in a fucking arms race with them for DECADES and they NEVER built anything close to an anti ship missile that would be effective against the Iowa's!
>>28466442
Nope. it's an easy mistake to make, but anti-ship missiles generally use a high explosive semi-armor periceing warhead. Basically a hardened steel projectile filled with lots and lots of boom. It drives into the side of the target then explodes.
A shaped charge warhead would be relatively pointless on a warship. Detonating on the outer hull the copper jet would be unlikely to penetrate the inner hull, even with a large warhead and a minimally 'armored' design.
>>28466375
>After that, it would still be able to launch sorties.
You are assuming that the aircraft is not losing aircraft to SAM's. The carrier needs space for its 5000 person crew, needs space for its 90 aircraft, needs space for hangars, etc.
Whereas the battleship would be largely all munitions, plus being much cheaper to build/crew/operate.
In terms of cost effectiveness, the battleship would have the carrier beat.
But obviously, the US is not building carriers to fight navies.
>>28466435
>>28466489
You never know what could happen. Which is why I want our carriers to have a dozen VLS cells tucked away somewhere. What if this, what if that, it's better to have and not need than need and not have, be prepared, etc. I'm just asking that future aircraft carrier designs get a few VLS tubes, and future submarine designs get escape pods. It's not much.
>>28466481
They could find somewhere out of the way to put them, it's just a dozen cells.
>>28466532
VLS cells cannot be replenished at sea.
Lets not forget most ship are armed with this Phalanx CIWS or something close to it, and the exocet only max Speed of Mach 0.92
1,134 kilometres per hour (705 mph) but the mk7 16"/50 has Muzzle velocity AP: 2,500 ft/s (762 m/s)
HC & Nuclear: 2,690 ft/s (820 m/s)
>>28466442
...so could you defeat AShMs with ERA tiles and spaced armor? In theory, that should reduce a HEAT round enough that 6 inches of steel could stop it. You also run into issues with the penetration of a shaped charge being relative to the width of the charge rather than it's weight and a super sonic missile can't use a shaped charge because the margin of error for the missile's stand off distance is too low.
My understanding was that the missile had a hardened steel casing but that doesn't make much sense either.
>>28466440
Technically, the Tomahawk cruise missile does outrange the LRASM despite being nearly 20 years it's senior. but I suppose that doesn't count.
>>28466428
Oh yeah, that thing! Pretty neat. But seriously, what >>28466479 said.
Let's assume both the Carrier and the BB (with their battlegroups) do have lasers too. That just means point defense is more effective in shooting down only incoming missiles, and at very short ranges. In this situation, what would happen is that the BB's missile salvo would still get shot down due to being fuck-huge, even if it unleashed everything it had at the Carrier. Which leads us back to where we left off. The BB blowing its load, without anything in reserve, leaving him completely helpless in the face of the Carrier as she hits him and his battlegroup where-ever and when-ever she likes, non-stop, until he breaks.
Also, he's way the fuck slower with all that armor and huge munitions. Useless really.
>>28466358
>Well... we've had the Iowa's for years and nobody bothered building missiles that could one shot it.
haha what?
the iowas have not been a thing for fucking decades for one.
two, do you know anything about soviet anti-shipping missiles?
>Even the Russians said they didn't have any missiles that would be appropriate for killing an Iowa.
the soviet union had been fielding high subsonic and supersonic anti-ship missles with huge he warheads (up to 1000kg) or nuclear options since the 50s. they had also being lying through their teeth to everyone about everything. it's like you don't remember the cold war.
>So.... America has had the armor advantage ever since WW2 ended, and nobody has bothered countering the Iowa's...
the iowas were not consistantly fielded since world war 2.
>So.... you're the retarded one? :)
given that you're wrong in every respect, not even close, fucktard.
>>28466510
You realize that quote was manufactured out of whole cloth by the UNFSA, right? It's straight up STDH where everyone applauds at the end.
>>28465579
I'm not trying to detract from your argument here, but how effective are most forms of interception. Like what is the percentage of incoming ashm's that can be shot down by a ticonderoga.
>>28466479
LaWS is six five kilowatt solid state lasers fired though the same telescope. It's pretty much just a "hey, let's throw a few million at putting a bunch of welding lasers together."
As a proof of concept, it works. It's quite limited by it's operating wavelength and power limits of solid state lasers.
Raython's FEL prototypes are 100 kilowatt lasers tuned to much higher wavelengths, able to ignore the vast majority of atmospheric effects and invulnerable to the old 'put mirrored foil on it' method of laser defense.
Even with the limitations of LaWS the later higher energy versions should be able to perform anti-missile defensive duity in good conditions. FEL systems can provide area anti missile defense and short ranged anti-aircraft work.
That said, the FEL are big and relatively complicated and cost a hell of a lot more to develop then the 40 million pocket change that LaWS has cost.
>>28466490
>oh wait, you're going to armor the hull as well! congrats, your ship isn't breaking 8 knots.
You know carriers weigh 100,000 tons, and can make over 30 knots?
>have what?
Have UAVs capable of spotting inbound missiles & have CIWS capable of engaging it?
>gonna armor plate that fucker all over are you?
Some sort of tumblehome ship design like the zumwalt, for example.
>it needs to stop the total energy of the ke of the mass plus the yield of the warhead
What?
>>28466551
yes they can.
http://blog.usni.org/2015/07/30/vls-at-sea-reloading
>>28466537
>You never know what could happen. Which is why I want our carriers to have a dozen VLS cells tucked away somewhere.
What exactly is going to get close enough to a carrier that VLS cells are necessary? Theres an ENTIRE FUCKING TASK GROUP for that.
And dont say a fucking submarine, good luck hitting one with VLS-launched ANYTHING
>>28466365
>Except thats what I'm saying
no, you're saying build a massive single stage missile.
>and for the purposes of this discussion, the fighter constitutes an extremely expensive & limiting first stage for the missile.
no, for the purposes of your head cannon, the fighter is such. in the real world you have no fucking idea what you are talking about and the reasons for this have already been explained.
>fighters have wings
this is really fucking crucial. go and educate yourself as to why this is so crucial.
i just noticed this
>>28466150
>A battleship mounting anti-ship tridents with KE projectiles that impact at mach 24 would be superior to ANY aircraft launched AShM
you are so stupid you are actually making my head hurt.
>>28466510
But that's the thing. Their stuff doesn't actually HAVE to be effective. If Gorshkov here had to fight an Iowa, he would have been very pleasantly delighted to have found out that just hitting it a few times to render it blind, deaf, mute and crippled would have sufficed. There's no need to actually penetrate its armor anywhere.
>>28466629
>just hitting it a few times to render it blind, deaf, mute and crippled would have sufficed.
This. Drop two cluster munitions on it and call it a fucking day.
>>28465341
>Battleship batteries can only shoot at targets within 40km range
>Modern AshM can fly over 300+km with new Long range AshM going for 1000km.
Missles literally outgun BB shells and railgun tech. Simple as that.
>>28466616
> >it needs to stop the total energy of the ke of the mass plus the yield of the warhead
>What?
What he's saying is, several hundred pounds of missile, unspent fuel, and warhead, don't just magically vanish because an intercepting missile, cannon shell, or ERA hit it.
Look up conservation of momentum. Unless your ERA or other defending system can overcome the momentum of all that shit arriving, your fantasy BB still has to deal with half a ton or so of explosives, shrapnel, and jet fuel arriving at great pace.
Will it penetrate your fantasy hull and plates? Maybe, maybe not. But other things, like inconsequential trivialities such as radio masts, radar, EO systems, crew, etc, won't cope well with the explosion close aboard. Never mind the possibility of shock damage.
>>28466625
China and iran have produced anti-ship ballistic missiles
Cruise missiles also have wings, so I don't understand your point.
You know that aircraft have to burn a hell of a lot of fuel flying around, and are expensive, and take lots of maintenance to keep in working order?
>>28466624
> good luck hitting one with VLS-launched ANYTHING
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RUM-139_VL-ASROC
>>28466616
>You know carriers weigh 100,000 tons, and can make over 30 knots?
you realise they carry 70+ aircraft plus fuel and munitions and 6000 crew and have the interior space to do so?
you realise your suggestion would have teh interior space for a tin of crabs and a cum stained sock? you don't even know why this is? the answer is 'go and look at a tank'. strange, given you seem so fond of them.
>Have UAVs capable of spotting inbound missiles & have CIWS capable of engaging it?
name that uav.
and if you have ciws why do you need era. this has been explained to you.
>Some sort of tumblehome ship design like the zumwalt, for example.
what? zumwalts are not amor plated. not like you think. so explain to me what you think your fucking point is.
>What?
IT NEEDS TO STOP THE TOTAL ENERGY OF THE KE OF THE MASS PLUS THE YIELD OF THE WARHEAD
BECAUSE ANY ENERGY NOT STOPPED IS GOING DIRECTLY INTO THE HULL, BECAUSE YOU'VE WAITED UNTIL THE HULL TO STOP IT, NOT THE EMPTY AIR BECAUSE YOU'VE STOPPED IT 30KM AWAY
IF YOU'RE TOO FUCKING STUPID TO WORK THAT OUT KEEP YOUR STUPID FUCKING OPINIONS TO YOURSELF.
fucking retard.
>>28466665
So we've now dedicated a shitload of space on a carrier literally just so it can get its own sub kills. The fact you don't see how incredibly unnecessary this is baffles me.
>>28465547
Not really. Prinz Eugen took Crossroads Baker like a champ, with no significant damage, but eventually capsized because she was too irradiated for regular maintenance. It doesn't matter how well the armor performs if the crew dies and the ship sinks anyway.
>>28466624
Subs can be killed by VLS launched anti-submarine rockets, but honestly you'd be far more likely to have them exploded by something dropped out of a 737 days before the carrier group even reaches the area.
>>28466150
why would you put slbms on a battleship.
just fire off another well guided ballistic missile.
actually don't they cost like 18 million each
>>28466663
>>28466673
>BECAUSE ANY ENERGY NOT STOPPED IS GOING DIRECTLY INTO THE HULL
It's armored retard. It NEEDS to be armored to use ERA in the first place.
Why would any battleship have less CIWS or interception tools than a carrier?
>name that uav.
darpa's TERN project.
>and if you have ciws why do you need era.
Because CIWS doesn't have a hope in hell of stopping a salvo of AShM's
>>28466440
The SM-3 has a range of 1350 miles. Don't mistake the range advantage as innate to the airplane, anything that can be mounted on a plan can be upscaled and fitted with a rocket booster for use on a warship.
>>28466609
if you don't shoot them down you're stopping them all with your hull. an entire flight of missiles on your hull.
i don't give a fuck if you've got era. ignoring the fuckhuge block and what it will do to your ships ability to even pass through the water, you've still got hundreds of kilos of he explosives (ignoring the nuclear option) detonating right next to your hull and crew. not to mention stopping the ke/forwards momentum of these airframes. these aren't small missiles and these aren't small warheads; they're not fucking atgm. that energy is going immediately into the atmosphere surrounding your ship and you expect the superstructure/any topdeck structure to survive? the fuck?
not to mention stopping sympathetic detonations of the other blocks. not to mention multiple missiles; blocks are one shot wonders. jesus christ, where's your ship gone?
interception is the only viable option. chucklefuck can't deal though. this is because he simply ignores everything counter to his head cannon.
>>28466724
We're not talking about penetration, fuckknuckle - we're talking about the fact that armor aside, HALF A TONNE OF BURNING METAL, EXPLOSIVE AND MISSILE BODY landing at 0.8-2.7x the speed of sound on your ship IS GOING TO BREAK SHIT, ARMOR OR NO ARMOR
>>28466510
in 1985 the granit and the moskit were already in fleet. go and look up those missiles and what they can do and you are fucking telling me rha is going to stop that shit?
gorshkov was a lying fucking commie at the height of the cold war. why the fuck would believe anything he said?
>>28466736
>interception is the only viable option.
This is not true
ARMOR is a viable option
Another layer of defense.
You've gotten caught up in a doctrine that assumes nuclear AShM's, hence no point to armor.
>>28466755
2 feet of steel combined with spaced armor, ERA, and an APS would stop it.
>>28466735
it's a three stage missile. that range is because it is exo-atmospheric.
jesus why do we have to explain this to you?
>>28466532
So what if the carrier is losing aircraft to SAMs? The rate at which they'd be shot down would be very low - where the SAMs have to thread a needle to down the fighters, and at longer ranges where they're least effective even, ASMs don't with the BB being such a fatass. And in terms of cost effectiveness, the BB loses. The primary munitions you advocate are huge, negating its massive internal volume used to store stuff, and not only that, would be expensive as well. Next, the carrier can resupply while the BB can't; its faster, and its primary assets are - guess what? - fucking aircraft! But that's probably irrelevant. All it takes to ruin that BB is just one hit. Ideally, something as puny as a cluster munition. Even with all that absurdly expensive and extreme equipment used to try and bridge the gap between itself and its foe. Even with all that absurdly expensive and increasingly heavy armor. Even with all that, the BB will be blind, deaf and mute; basically even more helpless than it was before with all the green shelled out to try and make something so obsolete relevant again. Because, in the end of the day, you can't armor something like radar, a bridge, the steering rudder, propellers or even cameras if you armor the bridge itself.
Carriers rape BBs. Extra hard, and at a fraction of the price.
>>28466785
Truly you have a ninja-level ability for self delusion.
Your arguments have been folded in your head so much they have OVER ONE MIRRION RAYERS
It's a pity they'd have to exist in a world of physics and real-world ship design rather than the world of chocolate rainbows and unicorns that exists between your ears.
Have fun, kid.
>>28466785
>This is not true
it is
>ARMOR is a viable option
it's not. we've explained this to you. when confronted you shift to something else and when that is refuted you circle back to armor. you're just a fucking prick.
>Another layer of defense.
it's a layer of pointless mass that won't stop anything. this is the truth.
>You've gotten caught up in a doctrine that assumes nuclear AShM's, hence no point to armor.
this is not true. it's not. we've explained this to you. when confronted you shift to something else and when that is refuted you circle back to armor.
you are dishonest and delusion and just retarded. your dishonesty is how you can maintain your delusion and retardation.
>2 feet of steel combined with spaced armor, ERA, and an APS would stop it.
that ship would not float. this has been explained to you. and don't try to say 'carriers are 100 000 tons' because carriers have thin hulls, and huge volume and you fucking wouldn't compared to your mass. ok? so shut the fuck up already.
and guess what? that solution wouldn't even survive one flock of granits.
>>28466805
>Carriers rape BBs. Extra hard, and at a fraction of the price.
hilariously, they were raping bbs in ww2 before nukes were a thing. who gives a fuck if it took 12 shitty, shitty torpedoes and a bunch of bombs to kill yamato? because that fucking thing never got anywhere near the carrier that killed it.
fucking retards.
>>28466785
He specifically said not using nukes. And that's not to mention the myriad of other posts pointing out why you're stupid.
I'm sorry, but your battleship is sunk.
At this point, your just being really stupid and either pulling stuff out of your ass, or ignoring what's said. Assuming you're a troll? Well, you're a pretty shitty one because your argument is so easily refuted, and at so many points. Good trolls use insane troll logic, which is frustrating in the fact that it cannot be easily refuted at all. Which, again, you're just not a good troll. And if you're sincere? I really hope you're just a little kid and not someone a bit older. Otherwise, you should seriously consider offing yourself. Not on the basis that your argument was a steaming pile of shit, but based off the fact that you were unable to accept evidence contrary to your viewpoint despite its overwhelming nature. Such a thing is practically failure as a human being - subhuman even.
>>28466868
brutal.
>>28466868
Fucking kek'd at your image
>>28466805
>Next, the carrier can resupply while the BB can't
Simply not true, VLS can be reloaded at sea.
>All it takes to ruin that BB is just one hit.
That wasn't true in WW2 and isn't true now.
>Because, in the end of the day, you can't armor something like radar, a bridge, the steering rudder, propellers or even cameras if you armor the bridge itself.
At the end of the day you can make all those things redundant and yes, you can armor them, to one extent or another.
Such as retractable radars/communications/cameras.
>and at a fraction of the price.
Thats plain and simple bullshit.
Could you fire an ICBM at a carrier fleet at sea?
>>28466889
>At the end of the day you can make all those things redundant and yes,
how can you make the radar of a ship redundant.
or the propellers
>Thats plain and simple bullshit.
why do you think a bb is going to be cheap
Why dont we use swarm missiels, a missile packed with multiple swarm missiles, that way you can launch the missile, and have it split into multiple smaller missiles that each have the velocity and altitude advantage gained from being launchd in mid air.
>>28466785
>2 feet of steel combined with spaced armor, ERA, and an APS would stop it.
said the internet expert, pulling shit from his ass with nothing to back that up.
also, has it ever occurred to you that 2 feet of armor weighs a fucking shit-tonne, and would slow the ship down horribly, as well as increase the cost, make it use more fuel, and all those other wonderful logistical factors which is why the people who aren't armchair experts abandoned armor?
>>28466889
>Such as retractable radars/communications/cameras.
Ok, ok, I know we're at troll-saturation now but I cannot not respond to that.
Have you ever looked at a warship? Seen what a radar or comms antennae look like? Seen the real estate they take up? Seen how, for some odd reason, they're a) fuck hueg and b) occupy space at the highest parts of the ship?
So you're going to:
- conceptualise a system that can retract fucking gigantic radar and comms equipment
- do it fast enough that a sub-launched sea skimmer won't reach you before they retract
- have retraction gear that will withstand battle damage
- BLIND YOUR FUCKING SHIP AND RENDER IT UNABLE TO COMMUNICATE AT THE VERY MOMENT IT'S IN FUCKING COMBAT
I look forward to watching your proposal to the DoD.
>>28466920
Yep. Could you hit it? Probably not.
The Chinks seem to think they can, mind you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZCTxgAWx_U
>>28466962
USA blown the fuck out
Where are the battleships???
>>28466343
>>28466953
whats so hard about it? all you need is some guidance system to home in on the carrier.
>>28466793
Because you're explanation doesn't make sense. Sure, there's a new anti-ship missile but whose to say they don't come out with an anti-air missile with even greater range. Whose to say they don't make a version of the SM-3 that turns horizontal before igniting the next stage?
That's my point, a plane has weight limits and a warship's weight limits are far more lax.
>>28466889
>Simply not true, VLS can be reloaded at sea.
The fuckhuge VLS that your BB uses? I think not. And even if it could? It wouldn't be able to do it with any speed like a carrier would be able to with its assets.
>That wasn't true in WW2 and isn't true now.
One name. Bismark. I suppose I should be fair - it's not one that'll completely ruin your ship. It's just one good one. Though, with the cluster munition, we don't need a good hit, do we? We just need a hit.
>At the end of the day you can make all those things redundant and yes, you can armor them, to one extent or another.
Such as retractable radars/communications/cameras.
At the end of the day, they'll have to be unbuttoned and exposed to work, and even redundancy with such soft spots will only do so much. If you have secondary or tertiary backups? A second or third cluster bomb then.
>Thats plain and simple bullshit.
...hahahahahaha! A carrier is made to be as cheap as possible while hauling spare parts, munitions, crew, food, propulsion/fuel, aircraft and a (steam powered) plane chucker. Maybe a splash of point defense. And your BB? Most of what a carrier has minus the aircraft stuff, but plus nothing but the finest multi-meter thick, spaced chobham/dorochester armor on the sides, on the bottom, on the top. And with equally fine ERA plates rated to stop ASMs. Plus, its special, massive VLS tubes and munitions. This shit is supremely expensive. Like, purchase all of Commiefornia, make everyone Republican and secede to declare itself /k/-land expensive.
>>28466939
>- BLIND YOUR FUCKING SHIP AND RENDER IT UNABLE TO COMMUNICATE AT THE VERY MOMENT IT'S IN FUCKING COMBAT
Oh man, you got me laughing good there! But really, you fail troll? What >>28466868 said. Now, I'll go back to lurking, but some delicious dinner won't eat itself.
>>28466962
>>28466975
>battle ships
hahaha
that was a shell of a "US Aircraft Carrier", and there was no retaliation, because there was no one on it.
It'd be much harder to sink a ship when there's actually stuff inside of it, guns that can shoot back, and a whole load of ships escorting it. As well as lasers that sink all your little boats in a matter of seconds.
>>28466985
re-entry fucks that up the ass. the soviets tried it. the problem is something to do with ionization as it comes through the atmosphere and how that interferes with known forms of guidance. also trying to get something travelling that fast to change direction in order to intercept a moving target.
>>28466574
The Tomahawk outranges a lot of things, but it's also sub-sonic, you won't get anywhere fast, assuming it doesn't get shot down.
>>28466953
if intel on exact location is available, there's no reason not to be able to send an ICBM to within... 100, 200m of target, even with shitty 70's russian tech. and I dont doubt that the chinese are more accurate today than the russians were 40 years ago.
100-200m isnt going to make much difference to the level of fucked-up-ness, *especially* if its possible to have an ICBM withstand impact with water, and detonate underwater. Honestly, dont know if they, or anyone has that capability though.
the only realistic question mark is, would that 100m accuracy be enough for a mobile target? 30 knots, is 900metres / minute. what's the flight time for an ICBM? is it fast enough for the given range, that an exact position can be given, the speed and heading calculated, and a projected point of contact fed in realtime, to the launching missile with accuracy of time to target?
I wouldn't like to be the guy trying to work out the calculations, but I *really* wouldn't like to be the guy on the ship that's being shot at either.
>>28466985
Ok, first thing's first - you started off by saying "ICBM", not Dong-Fucked-6 or whatever the ASBM is called.
ICBMs with nuclear warheads were designed to hit stationary targets, not a carrier manoeuvring at 30+ knots. Some can, at the terminal end, perform some manoeuvres but that was intended to make interception difficult, not course-correct to intercept a moving target.
Once they're launched, they have no ability for mid-course guidance input. So it's still going to try and hit the same point in the ocean as what was programmed when it launched. You're looking at say, 15-30 minutes from launch to landing, plus whatever time it takes for you to generate intel on a carrier group's position, transmit that intel to the person/people with authority to decide to launch an ICBM, transmit that targeting info to the launch site, and then the reaction time at the site. By the time the thing launches, the carrier could be 30nm from where you thought it was.
>"All you need is some guidance system"
Now you're talking a major redesign. You're talking a guidance system that can either accept late-course terminal guidance from some kind of input at the very last stage flight, or a system (like radar or IR based) that can autonomously detect, identify and then track the warhead to your target, and you're talking a final stage/reentry vehicle that's been modified - or more likely ground-up designed- to manoeuvre in the terminal phase to hit a moving target.
All that is expensive, difficult to test, and subject to a lot of what-ifs
>>28467052
Suit up boys, we're going to space.
>>28467039
>Because you're explanation doesn't make sense.
only because you're a fucking idiot.
>Whose to say they don't make a version of the SM-3 that turns horizontal before igniting the next stage?
what do you think that would solve.
>That's my point, a plane has weight limits and a warship's weight limits are far more lax.
you're a fucking retard.
seriously, you are hilariously dumb.
and i don't like you, because you're dishonest as well.
so you can sit there and fuck yourself until you get smart enough to work out the difference between travelling through the atmosphere and travelling through no atmosphere. and figure out what the fuck aerodynamics are and why they give advantages to winged aircraft.
and next time to come to /k/, come with a little more humility and actually listen to what people have told you.
>>28467046
>Oh man, you got me laughing good there! But really, you fail troll? What >>28466868 said.
I'm not sure if you think I was supporting Battleship Admiral Dipshit McGee or if you were agreeing with my point and laughing at him but I think I just had a reading comprehension failure either way.
>>28467076
>that image
>my sides
>>28467092
My bad. I was agreeing with you and telling Battleship Admiral Dipshit McGee to an-hero.
>>28467062
Not him but me.
I just meant in general.
I'm sure harbors are targeted anyways.
>>28467055
>and I dont doubt that the chinese are more accurate today than the russians were 40 years ago.
They are not, the UR-100N is more advanced than anything the Chinese have now.
>>28467092
>Battleship Admiral Dipshit McGee
christ my sides can't take this shit much longer
>>28467126
Ah gotcha. In that case, yep, right there with you.
>>28467126
>>28467142
While eating some bomb-ass pho. Grammar and punctuation goes to shit when typing and eating.
>>28467145
I hear you, brother
>all these fuckign retards who have no idea what ERA does
it exists to break up the jet of a HEAT warhead. It would have virtually no effect on 90% of AShM warheads
>>28466854
I wouldn't call 12 torpedoes insignificant. Arguably a Nimitz class carrier couldn't take that kind of firepower. It's armor is way thinner. It should also be noted that there were planes from 11 different carriers involved in the attack, nearly 400 planes in total. The Yamato still took over two hours to die.
By contrast, the carrier Hiryu was struck by only 5 dive bombs. It quickly caught fire and had to be abandoned. A single squadron of 24 dive bombers did that.
So as far as toughness goes the Yamato is pretty damn tough and the imperial japanese navy jsut wasn't good at damage control.
>>28467280
dear mouth breathing retard.
the yamato was not floating alone. guess what happened to the escorts
but it doesn't actually matter
nor does the difference between modern munitions and ww2 munitions
because the yamato was killed before it got anywhere near the ships that killed it
it never even made visual contact with its enemy
this lack of visual contact was consistant throughout the pacific war
if you don't understand this crucial factor then just fuck off
>>28467280
I agree, and as shitty as OP's idea is, the hunk of junk IS good for something. Namely, re-enacting Operation Ten-Go, but with modern munitions, fighters and ships. I freely admit that it would be fun to slap that BB so it's blind, deaf and mute before pounding that slab over and over again with high explosives.
>>28467352
Don't get so angry - I don't think he was talking in favor of Battleship Admiral Dipshit McGee. Just on behalf of the Yamato and the classic BBs. Not the stinking pile of shit that OP aborted out of his mind and into this thread for us to call bull on.
You'll all be sorry when my 100,000 tonne Improved BBs escort container ships from Buenos Aires to the Falklands and invades them by surprise!
>>28467089
So...you don't have an argument so you insist on name calling?
>the difference between travelling through the atmosphere and travelling through no atmosphere.
Actually, since the missile is traveling straight up it's got to have more thrust than most missiles. Additionally, without air standard control surfaces are useless so the final corrections need to be done with RCS thrusters.
So if your satisfied with just labeling all who disagree with you dumb, liars, or both you're welcome to.
But please be more convincing than that.
>>28467377
it's hard to tell in this thread.
but in essence the point stands. it doesn't matter how tough you are, because if you can't bring your weapons to effect on your enemy you're not even in the fight. this is the reason why battleships are no longer a thing. they simply cannot out-range a carrier, and it doesn't matter how many hits you can take, because if you can't hit your enemy then you're going to take all of them.
>>28467280
Dumb question of the day: Did anybody every experiment with multiple smaller AP bombs? You could pull out at 1000' and loose this gigantic shotgun spray of nasty things onto this big moving target. Why wouldn't this work in RL?
/awaits lecture
>>28467410
>>28466574
Naw. Shooting a one-ton warhead with ERA just makes mad when it's exploding on contact.
>>28467414
>So...you don't have an argument so you insist on name calling?
no, it's because you're a retard, and a dishonest one at that, and retards get no respect.
>Actually, since the missile is traveling straight up it's got to have more thrust than most missiles.
no shit faggot. why you think that supports your position is the question. do you even understand what thrust is?
>Additionally, without air standard control surfaces are useless so the final corrections need to be done with RCS thrusters.
again, what do you think this means in the context of this discussion?
in fact, instead of looking into the difference between atmospheric and exo-atmospheric travel and understanding the huge range of the sm-3 (and by extrapolation understanding waverider and skylon, previously mentioned) and why a horizontal (relative to what?) vector makes no fucking difference, all you've done is come back with a strawman. and you're complaining that you're being called dishonest.
actually, if you read the thread, i've already told you. i have been so good to you.
>So if your satisfied with just labeling all who disagree with you dumb, liars, or both you're welcome to.
this is because you are.
>But please be more convincing than that.
please fuck off and never come back.
but you'll be back. you can't stay away.
>>28467432
Yeah. What's worse is that OP doesn't realize that the extremes to which a BB would have to go to be relevant again would likely buy us at least another...three or four Nimitz class? Maybe the newer Ford class even, and that's being conservative. The sheer amount of resources for the composite armor alone would be more than enough to armor another 41k M1 Abrams. Again, being conservative.
It's just not cost effective, and logistics wins wars.
>>28467449
Yeah. The Rockeye II Mk 20 cluster bomb deploys Mk 118 anti-tank bomblets. Small frag/shaped charge bombs made to penetrate the upper armor of tanks and armored machines.
Each bomb deploys 217 of them. They aren't made for anti-ship work, but could be used for such. Each Mk 118 can breach 7" of RHA.
>>28467449
hello old chap
i don't know if they did in the context you're talking about, that is specifically to take out capital ships. the issue is the size gives it redundancy. so you need a fairly large charge to do damage after penetration. however, that size is not outside the capabilities of modern airborne weaponry. in fact the warheads even exist now in the usn, they're just on jsow rather than any anti-shipping missile.
if the usn had to deal with yamato tomorrow they'd use a sub and an adcap, blow it under the keel and crack the spine of the ship and kill it dead probably maybe even with one shot. the brits have an even bigger warhead, and the russians larger again. easy fix.
>>28467581
>>28467410
>Improved BBs escort container ships from Buenos Aires to the Falklands and invades them by surprise
>>28467538
let alone era. lol wtf. can you imagine what the drag of losing a single fuck huge plate would cause on one side of the ship? holy shit.
>>28467616
He's making a joke at OP's expense anon.
>>28465847
Can the AEGIS system automatically integrate ESM bearings from ships in the group to determine the precise location of an emitter?
anti ship missiles are pretty stronk anon, even the chinese are investing in it
>>28467377
Pretty much. Mostly, I'm advocating using BBs as escorts for CVs.I came to this conclusion from two facts.
The first was that China claimed that part of it's strategy if the US and China came to blows was to take out the Carriers with massed cruise missiles. A modern fleet carrier just isn't equipped to deal with it and most carriers seem to act without escorts these days. Aircraft might be able to make intercept but they don't mount the radar to target a supersonic cruise missile effectively and intercept it.
The second is that nobody is going to put a nuclear reactor on some cruiser. What you want is something big and beefy and isn't going to take hits to the reactor. Something with about one foot of armor at the belt and another foot of armor on the inside over the vitals. Something that can mount enough ECM to not only protect it'self but other ships as well. Basically an Iowa with chobham armor, railguns, lasers, and enough electronic warfare gear to make a bowl of popcorn at ten nautical miles.
The idea is that not only would the BB have the cruising range to keep up with a modern carrier, it would be able to act as a decoy and draw AShM missiles to it'self rather than the carrier. Because a Battleship can take those hits.
>>28467499
>no, it's because you're a retard, and a dishonest one at that, and retards get no respect.
So tell me, where did I lie?
>no shit faggot. why you think that supports your position is the question. do you even understand what thrust is?
Sure, if a SM-3 can get into orbit, it certainly has enough fuel to travel about a hundred kilometers over land.
>actually, if you read the thread, i've already told you. i have been so good to you.
Are you sure it was me? How?
>why a horizontal (relative to what?) vector makes no fucking difference
By that virtue the 1350km range stills stands.
>>28467789
We already covered all of that. Decisively. Multiple times.
>>28467805
Cite please?
>>28466612
What if they make a variant of the C-2 airframe with an FEL, or microwave weapon like on the CHAMP missile for anti-air, ship, personnel and missile purposes?
>>28467499
>>28467789
Going straight up is the easy way to go really far with a missile.
Air is thick. It's really hard to go though if you wanna go real fast.
For the energy you'd need to go 50 kilometers along the surface, you can instead fly up where the air is very, very thin. When you are there you can go a very long distance by using very little energy. This is why an SM-3 ER can go a very, very, very long distance.
>>28467851
The armor needed to resist a high energy laser is pretty heavy. If you don't think anybody else has a laser then fly your freak flag with your laser airplane.
Otherwise, you want enough armor to resist directed energy weapons.. something that will be heavy, and likely want to put it on a boat.
>>28467857
True but air is also reaction mass. You can use a rocket motor to get the missile going and then switch over to a ramjet for range.
>>28467733
>most carriers seem to act without escorts these days.
this is incorrect.
>>28467733
>Something with about one foot of armor at the belt and another foot of armor on the inside over the vitals. Something that can mount enough ECM to not only protect it'self but other ships as well. Basically an Iowa with chobham armor, railguns, lasers, and enough electronic warfare gear to make a bowl of popcorn at ten nautical miles
>The idea is that not only would the BB have the cruising range to keep up with a modern carrier, it would be able to act as a decoy and draw AShM missiles to it'self rather than the carrier. Because a Battleship can take those hits.
here we go again.
>>28467849
THE ENTIRE FUCKING THREAD OVER MULTIPLE POSTS YOU CUNT
>>28467055
well with a trident D-5 with 40m CEP, and 12-14 W88s at 475kt each, you might be able to have a dispersed pattern to get some rekt going.
>>28467789
>So tell me, where did I lie?
in constantly shifting from one concept to another when you were challenged.
in posting another strawman in your previous post.
>Sure, if a SM-3 can get into orbit, it certainly has enough fuel to travel about a hundred kilometers over land.
and you do it again.
>Are you sure it was me? How?
doesn't even fucking matter, because it's in the thread for all to see
>By that virtue the 1350km range stills stands.
by no way shape it or form does it stand. you dishonest, disingenious cunt.
>>28465379
Because aircrafts have better range than guns and ship based radars and nukes one-shot everything.
>>28465721
>750 kg (1,653 lb) of HE filler.
750 kg is total weight of warhead. HE filler is most probably around 50% or 375 kg.
>>28467849
>>28465379
Battleships absorb like 2,000 souls to run. For the US navy the real limiting factor to how many ships can be in commission at once is more people then money.
Even if they were FUCKING AWESOME, they'd need to be gold plated blowjob machines for the navy to justify using up enough personnel to run 7 guided missile destroyers.
>>28465732
GBU-24 will very probably work too.
>>28465732
Most of the time what is on the other side of the armor plate is a anti-splinter plate, so all a shaped charge would do is shoot it's load all over the inner hull.
>>28468045
you do know technology has reduced ship crew numbers dramatically these days, right?
An Iowa built these days would have 1/4 of that crew.
