Are kamikaze attacks viable in modern warfare due to the lack of armor on modern ships?
It seems a small country with an ideologically indoctrinated population (North Korea?) could buy cheap fast jets like old MiG variations and pack them with explosives.
Would modern warships be able to deal with massed kamikaze attacks? Would they be able to absorb a hit the way American battleships did during the Pacific campaign?
Pic is HMS Sussex after a kamikaze attack.
>>28473325
This picture makes absolutely no sense
>>28473339
armor nigga
>norks
>affording anything
pick one
And yes, I'd say they would. Because there would be intel that the said country had such plans and so the navy would be able to plan around that.
This question is almost exactly the same as the swarm of missile boats.
[Millennium Challenge intensifies]
>>28473380
Its a perfectly burned outline of the plane. That's not what would happen if a plane crashed into the side of a fucking boat, regardless how much "armor" it has...
>>28473339
completely real though.
it was the imprint of a Mitsubishi Ki-51 "Sonia" that hit HMS Sussex, a County-class heavy cruiser, on 26 July, 1945, in the Netherlands East Indies.
>>28473434
Ever swatted a mosquito on your arm and noticed the perfect outline of dust it sometimes leaves?
That's literally what happened here. Something small and dainty met something not small and dainty at a fast speed.
>>28473325
No because computer controlled freedom dispensers
>>28473434
you seriously underestimate how flimsy aircraft really are.
the engine has dented the plate. the rest simply went splat.
here's an f4 phantom at about 500mph - a jet, weighing 18,825 kg when loaded, hitting a concrete wall:
Compare that to the Ki-51, which weighs 2,920 kg, and has a maximum speed of 263mph, at altitude. So weighs 1/6th of the mass, and was at best doing 1/2 the speed of this F4, its no surprise at all that the plane bounced right off the main belt armour of a heavy cruiser.
If it had hit the deck, perhaps it would've made a mess. but the main belt? Like a fly into a windshield.
>>28473468
You even see it when birds run into windows
>>28473442
i wonder if it made a BONK sound
>>28473325
Why was the landing gear down?
>>28473949
The Ki-51 has fixed gears.
>>28473339
It's a kamikaze attack, not a kamikaze plane.
I reckon if 500 MiG 19s packed with explosives attacked a CSG I reckon they would have a good chance of scoring a hit on the carrier.
No need to sink it, just hit the flight deck or elevator and watch it get towed back to dry dock for 10 months of repairs.
>>28473949
High drag low speed operating was standard in the Japan Military until James Yeager's videos made it to Japan
>>28473325
Aiming for the part of the ship where the armor is thickest, Japanese pilots weren't the smartest were they?
>>28473325
Most ships do have at least outter ceramic protection shell.
>>28474072
>Japanese pilots weren't the smartest were they?
Considering it wasn't uncommon for two-seater Japanese planes to take off on Kamikaze missions with the navigator on board, I'm not sure it was a matter of intelligence.
>>28474192
Very cool gif.
>>28473548
This video makes me die a little bit inside.
We don't armor shit anymore except carriers, right?
>>28473548
>Pilot: WHO PUT THIS HERE? ARRRGH
>>28474192
That just might be the best gif I saw on this board
>>28473442
Damn, County-class aren't even that well armored.
Guessing his bomb was just a dud though.
>>28474072
Well, the dude probably was half trained and flying through a storm of flak, the fact that he even hit a maneuvering ship is already pretty good.
Not likely
Modern Anti ship missiles are tons more cheaper and can do much crazier shit at faster speeds than a modern kamikaze
>>28473548
This gif would have been handy in the other thread where people were claiming an ASHM can punch through 12 inches of steel with just KE and not splat itself against the armor.
>>28473325
Is that someone's turd being flushed out of the head to the right of the impact?
>>28474192
Huh. Just from the shape of the impact, I would have guessed it was a D3A.
>>28474777
ASHMs with a smaller warhead than torpedoes, too.
The Soviet Granit was pretty hardcore though. But it would still wouldn't sink a BB.
>>28474777
>>28474812
Since modern heavy torpedoes (Mk48ADCAP, Swordfish, etc) detonate under the keel (where a WWII ship would have no armor) and not on the torpedo belt, any heavily armored/high displacement ship would actually be MORE vulnerable to them, not less. The force of the explosion is not what breaks the ship's back, but the huge vacuum bubble underneath the ship. The weight of the ship is literally the enemy at this point, as the ship flexes first upward (slightly, in the case of a much larger ship), and then fully flexes downward into that vacuum of water/steam/aeration which is 1/10th or less the density of the actual sea.
As far as AShMs against a WWII era armor scheme, even a flight of SM-2ERs or HARMs could easily mission kill something like an Iowa class by directly destroying sensors, bridge and other unarmored structures while setting the ship ablaze. Once the ship is occupied with DC, it is meat for follow up attacks or can be ignored as the mission directives dictate. Even if it takes three torps or a dozen LRASM hits to render it completely neutralized, that's an extremely cheap exchange rate in terms of cost and resources.
All of this while a BB analogue would be completely unable to answer with any effective fire. Any carrier or land based aviation AShM raid would launch from well beyond the effective range of the BB's guns/railguns/lasers/etc and could effectively continue to spam attacks until the job is completed without fear of reprisal.
TLDR: once again, for those on the short bus, the modern armored ship/modern BB idea is pants on head retarded. Take your rule of cool bullshit and stick it up your ass sideways.
>>28475006
>The force of the explosion is not what breaks the ship's back, but the huge vacuum bubble underneath the ship.
Except any heavily armored ship could fully support the structure of the ship on its side armor
Hence you can't break the back of it
See: The arkansas which took a nuke at 200 yards, didn't break the back
Modern torpedos detonating at 50 feet underneath a WW2 battleship would actually do almost nothing to them.
>>28475019
>Except any heavily armored ship could fully support the structure of the ship on its side armor
Wow. Way to leave no doubt you have exactly zero clue how naval architecture works. "side armor is keel structural" oh my fucking sides.
>The arkansas which took a nuke at 200 yards, didn't break the back
First of all, it survived the airburst from ABLE with little damage, like almost all of the ships, armored or no.
Secondly, the underwater BAKER shot so completely destroyed the "structurally armored" starboard half of the hull that they thought it was buried in the mud, even though they could see all of it after the shot. And that was from a lateral shockwave, not even one directly under the hull. Were you unaware that just about every nuclear power also has/had nuclear torpedoes?
>Modern torpedos detonating at 50 feet underneath a WW2 battleship would actually do almost nothing to them.
Spoken from the vast echoing cavern of ignorance, this rings especially hollow. Considering the number of BBs in WWII that were crippled or even sunk in ONE SHOT with torpedoes which were exploding against the fucking armor belt, this is beyond retarded. Keel detonation has been noted to make a vastly more destructively efficient use of the torpedo payload.
Why are BB fags so completely ignorant?
another day, another potato naval thread where battleship idiots insist the laws of physics are irrelevant.
why are you so shit, /k/?
>>28475070
>Considering the number of BBs in WWII that were crippled or even sunk in ONE SHOT with torpedoes
When was this?
>>28475070
>Keel detonation has been noted to make a vastly more destructively efficient use of the torpedo payload.
against UNARMORED TARGETS.
The most a battleship would suffer would be flooding in lower compartments or shock damage.
Further, any modern battleship would be armored against underkeel detonating torpedos
>>28473325
Considering most modern ships have systems designed to counter supersonic sea skimming and ballistic missiles, I doubt a bunch of shitty MiGs are going to get anywhere near them.
>>28475127
Oh, look. A tripfag that has no clue about military history yet constantly comments on it. What a surprise.
>>28475130
do you have any proofs
>>28474072
Mostlikely it wasn't on a kamikaze mission but it got damaged too badly.
>>28475130
>against UNARMORED TARGETS.
Against any targets. Where the fuck do you think a good chunk of those decommissioned WWII warships ended up in the late 40's, 50's and even 60's? They fully tested this shit, dumbass.
>Further, any modern battleship would be armored against underkeel detonating torpedos
You just tacked on at least another 1/3 of displacement right there, about 5ktons of which would be nothing but keel reinforcement. Do you have any fucking clue how heavy armor is?
>>28475146
I've never heard of any U boat victories against Allied battleships. I know about Royal Oak, but that was in the 2nd. So I was merely asking. Fag.
>>28473548
That is fucking awesome to watch.
>>28475171
You got a link to an underkeel test vs an actual battleship?
if you load up a plane with explosives, its going to be more efficient to drop the explosives and have a chance to just bring back the plane
>>28474192
Fucking cool gif
Did you do that?
Got any others?
>>28475182
Oh, look. Fucking ignorant moron doesn't know/can't be fucked to spend five minutes reading about:
>HMS Formidable
>HMS Triumph
>HMS Majestic
>HMS Suffren
>HMS Cornwallis
That's just off the top of my head for WWI. In all, there were no less than 10 BBs sunk or crippled by subs just in WWI.
Here's the top of my head for WWII:
>HMS Barnham
>IJN Kongo
and others.
Educate yourself, you worthless tripfaggot.
>>28475006
Jesus fucking Christ talk about a non-sequitur.
People are discussing the physics a high speed impact between armor and missile, and ue examples of high speed impacts between armor and plane as an example.
This had nothing to do with the viability of BB's as a system (they aren't viable at all).
Then you coming in preaching to the choir to add nothing of value to the conversation.
>>28475253
the anons he replied to talked about AShMs and torpedos in how effective they are against
>mah 12" of armor
non-sequitur my coon ass
>>28475268
More like 19 inches
And yes, the AShM's wouldn't penetrate
Missiles -are- kamikaze attackers
This is now a cool battleship shit thread.
>>28475224
>HMS Formidable
Pre Dreadnaught, hit by 2
>HMS Triumph
Pre Dreadnaught
>HMS Majestic
Pre Dreadnaught
>HMS Suffren
actually French battleship Suffren, not HMS, and again Pre Dreadnaught
>HMS Cornwallis
lastly, pre dreadnaught
>IJN Kongo
Hit by 3
>HMS Barnham
Hit by 3
No dreadnaughts were sunk by one torpedo, and the rash of pre-dreadnaught losses to torpedoes caused all newer battleships to be fitted with torpedo defenses.
Actual examples of BB's being crippled by one torp are.
North Carolina
> hit by one, front turret magazine flooded as a precaution, lost 5 knots of speed.
Bismarck
> Hit by one, rudder jammed, leading to eventual sinking
>>28475212
The Kamikaze was a culmination of Imperial Japan's thinking and desperation.
It goes without saying they were taught that it was preferable to die rather than face defeat.
But originally commanders were opposed to suicide attacks because it was a waste of aircraft and men. They only endorsed them when it became clear that Japan was in deep shit; they had lost most of their trained pilots because they were not withdrawn like in the US and UK and Japanese aircraft by that point were mostly inferior to the Americans in nearly every aspect.
Early monoplanes (Like the Ki-27, 43, etc.) could no longer effectively function as fighters, and Japanese bombers had little chance of coming back due to American fighters and AA fire. So they decided the best course of action was to get some use out of these planes and have them piloted by mostly novices that wouldn't need to be taught the intricacies of air combat. Just how to take off, land, and a few basic tactics for how to strike a ship.
It may seem crazy now, but for the Japanese at the time it was effective and more efficient than the way things had been going.
>>28473325
no because of CIWS
go read more
>>28475322
I thought the main reason they lost pilots is because their cockpits were under-armored to save weight.
>>28475308
The point you idiots fail to get is that only select areas on BBs are armored, and you can't armor sensors or keel. Armor weighs a fuckton. To build your autistic "all armored" BB, it'd weight 150ktons and do maybe 12 knots. It's retarded.
>>28475321
>sunk or crippled
learn to read, jackwagon. at least four of those were crippled with rudder shots or engine room flooding/listing on the first shot or it was the first torp which killed them.
>>28473325
Cruise missiles do the same thing, and are substantially less expensive than an airplane and a trained pilot.
>>28475371
This is a 5th gen era, a battleship doesn't need to rely on their own sensors.
Also redundancy exists.
At the end of the day, the battleship is far more suited to taking a hit & keeping going than an unarmored vessel.
Considering material costs are a negligible part of modern ships, it only makes sense to armor them.
>>28475398
>Considering material costs are a negligible part of modern ships
my fucking sides
>it only makes sense to armor them.
thus adding more than 1/2 displacement just for a WWII armor scheme (wrecked by an AShM swarm), which you then have to add yet MORE displacement to for beefier power and propulsion, which requires a larger hull and more armor, more manning for more reactors/machinery, etc.
saying it won't cost much more does not make it so.
>>28474724
Carriers have no armor, I bet even a 50 bmg would go through the hull.
>>28475441
through the hull, yes. through the magazines, CIC and certain other essential compartments, no.
>>28475428
The "We'll just intercept everything 30+ miles out" doesn't work when the time comes to get closer to shore
>>28475006
You say that as if the Iowa would just be sitting there getting hit by missiles. It would be firing full broadsides that would decimate any modern ship.
>>28475347
That's part of it. The Americans developed tactics to fight Japanese planes that relied on maneuverability. And by 1943 the US was making planes that could just about match the Japanese in that aspect, and beat them in all others.
And then another issue was even that pilots that were good, ended up dying in combat because they were not sent back home to train others (This was a problem the Luftwaffe also had). So by the end of the war they were left with very few experienced pilots and very few modern planes.
>>28475472
>It would be firing full broadsides that would decimate any modern ship.
Yeah, no. The range for those guns is 23nmi. A Superbug carrier launched strike has a max range of 900nmi plus. That means the carrier is striking from (comfortable margin - max would be 39) 30 TIMES the range at which your Iowa can fire back. Even a ship-launched AShM is can be fired from 20 times the effective range of an Iowa.
Your idea is retarded. Get over it.
>>28475517
>Modern battleships can't mount AShM's
>>28475465
Who's getting closer to shore without an ungodly level of preparatory bombardment? And what does it matter considering modern AShMs have a range of 200mi+? This is stupid. There aren't going to be unmolested MLRS launchers on the fucking beach trading shots.
>>28475530
Yeah? Sure. Ok. It mounts LRASM. That gives it a 500nmi range, with no real OTH targeting ability. Meanwhile, the carrier strike wing STILL outranges it by 390nmi with superbugs, 600nmi with F-35Cs. Either way, that BB isn't hitting shit.
>>28475544
It'll mount Dong-Feng 21 with a range of over 1000nm
> Implying a CIWS and the countless radars and sensors wouldn't fuck the plane up before it even was able to initiate the attack
>>28475398
which ones? not counting the pre-dreadnaughts that have zero torpedo protection.
Barnham was done in by 3 pretty much simultaneous hits that tore through the TDS.
Kongo was hit by 2, and sunk by progressive flooding when the boiler room flooded.
Repulse was hit by almost a half dozen in short succession.
Prince of Wales is the only dreadnought that could claim to have been done in by one torpedo hit.
So the number of BB's in WW2 that were sunk by one torpedo is one.
The number that were crippled by one torpedo shot was 1, Bismarck.
North Carolina lost a lot of combat power but she could still fight reasonably well if pressed.
The number of battleships sunk my multiple torpedo hits is a fucking ton of them.
Torpedo are absolutely deadly to battleships, but they aren't a magic bullet that causes BB's to explode the moment one hits. And I believe modern "keel breaking" torpedoes are even more deadly since battleships have the most heavily loaded keels out of any ship that floats.
>>28475554
Using fucking what to target? How is it even finding a CSG? How is it even mounting any kind of sizable number of those in a BB sized hull? The Kirov was 2/3 the displacement of an Iowa, with NO ARMOR, and still only had room for 20 Granits (half the size of a DF-21).
>>28475570
Learn what a radar horizon is, dumbass.
>>28475570
Hate to be the one to point this out to you, buddy, but the earth is fucking round. A BB masthead gets maybe 30nmi radar range against sea skimmers. That's it.
>>28475602
>What is VTOL UAV's
The only purpose for carriers is launching high performance stealth fighters
>>28475627
>AWACS
>Fleet UNREP/personnel rotation/supply
>ASW
>EW
ok, kid
>>28475644
Nothing stopping UAV's from doing all that
>>28475602
Sounds actually a bit too high. An Iowa class's highest antenna is 53 meters above sea level, say a sea-skimmer comes in at around 5 meters, that's 33km or roughly 18 nautical miles to spot the missile.
With say, a P-270, that's about 30 seconds to detect and kill. More time if the missile is faster or lower, higher if the missile is higher or slower.
>>28475661
>whew, boys, sea state just got above 3. guess we didn't really need that AWACS coverage, anyway
>whew, boys, sea state just got above 3. guess that UNREP/personnel flight which just flew 1,500mi can just go into the ocean. we didn't need that shit/those people anyway.
>whew, boys, sea state just got above 3. guess those subs totally can't see us anymore, amirite?
>whew, boys, sea state just got above 3. we didn't really need EW anyway.
Whew.
>>28475696
I was giving extreme benefit of the doubt to illustrate the point. He can play with this if he actually wants to learn something.
http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm
>>28473325
JET FUEL CAN'T MELT STEEL BEAMS
>>28475489
Didn't they also tend to overwork their top pilots to the point of exhaustion which also led to the them losing most of their top pilots
>>28473325
What would be the point? Suicide drones are cheaper.
>>28475752
The US was notable among WWII powers for rotating its experienced pilots through training billets back home to train up the new crop of pilots with tactics fresh from the front, flying the actual birds operational out there against actual enemy tactics. The Germans and Japanese especially just flew their ace/experienced pilots until they died, thus losing all that experience. This is why German aces especially racked up such high scores, but also why German had almost no trained pilots left by new years day 1945 and a severe shortage beginning in early 1944.
>>28476026
RAF rotated their pilots and kept them rested even during the worst months of the BoB.
>>28476039
It was less about rest and more about training new pilots to make the entire air force stronger from the bottom up. But you are partially correct in that sortie schedules for the allies gave far more thought to pilot fatigue.
>>28476068
No, back in the BoB it was rest that was more necessary. Not just physically, but also mental. Meth can carry you only so far.
>>28476090
That... that wasn't meth in the modern street drug sense of the word. You do realize that dextroamphetamine has far more resemblance to drugs like adderall and ritalin than to methamphetamine, right?
>>28473325
The only good answer is:
Jet fuel can't melt steal beams
>>28474777
The difference is that AShMs are full of high explosives, and some complete retard was arguing that P-700s would harmlessly splat against armor.
>>28476026
>The US was notable among WWII powers for rotating its experienced pilots through training billets back home to train up the new crop of pilots with tactics fresh from the front
not really notable, that was standard practise for most of the western powers, since before the US joined the war, but yes that is why the germans had the high scoring aces and why the allied airforces had the higher average skill levels.
the luftwaffe had a few very very good very experienced pilots and a lot of not very good green pilots.
the allies and a few very good experienced pilots and a metric fuckton of pretty good, well trained pilots
>>28475530
What if you replaced the 3 turrets of an Iowa class with AShM launchers? Longer range and heavier hitting than the guns.
To extend this train of though, why put three launchers into one ship when you can put one launcher into three ships which are smaller?
>>28474777
Bit of a difference between an inert airframe and a missile with a warhead.
>>28476438
>To extend this train of though, why put three launchers into one ship when you can put one launcher into three ships which are smaller?
There's absolutely no reason not to. 5 Burkes with their 480 VLS cells and everything else they come with will ALWAYS be more usefull than 480 VLS cells on a single ship. More sensor datum with better coverage, ability to detach for appropriate missions, ability to screen, just generally the ability to be more than one place at a time. And for zero loss of native capabilities. There's literally nothing a 480 VLS cell modern BB can do that 5 Burkes can't, which was not the case when you're discussing WWI naval technology.
>>28475221
Nah I saw it on here about 6 months ago I think. That shit is about 99% better than anything I'd manage to throw together.
>>28475221
this looks like something vsauce made.
>>28476438
>put all your eggs on one basket
No
>not just dropping an aerodynamic package of high explosives
Whatever would we call such a weapon?
>>28476480
now get the BB wanker to understand this also.
>>28476517
He never will, because he doesn't want to. So many of the idiots which post on /k/ are poster children for various flavors of delusion and willful ignorance.
There's a point at which rule of cool just becomes a watchword for "I don't have a fucking clue what I'm talking about".
>>28473325
How come the steel beams didn't melt?
>>28476480
One BB built for 2.5 billion vs 1 Burke built for 2.5 billion
Which would you rather have?
>>28476326
The HE detonating outside the ship because the missile itself splatted on armor will do massively less damage than detonating inside
>>28475127
Jesus Christ you homo it's called Google now fucking use it. But more importantly it did happen several times through out the war. As for examples go find one your fucking self.
>>28476609
If I was in your world, I'd just shit rainbow sherbert and kill all enemies with fucking magic why flying on my BFF fire dragon and fuck bitches on boats.
Since we're not in your world, you should know that you're not building anything even resembling the BB concepts thrown around in this thread for 2.5 billion, plus the fact that a BB would require ten times the crew of a Burke, so operating costs would still be retarded high.
>>28476609
what is the basis for making the BB and the burke same cost?
>>28476609
Just filling 480 VLS cells would cost in the 2.5bn range. It's beyond potato to even ask. Filling them all with just SM-6s would be almost 2.2bn dollars.
>>28474061
Then what do you do about the other 10 carriers?
>>28474745
Probably didn't even have bombs. 1945+old ass plane = it was probably a last ditch useless suicide.
>>28476669
100,000 tons of naval steel isn't that expensive.
The cost is the electronics, advanced machinery, union labor, price markup to keep companies afloat on 1 ship a year, and the dozens of major changes made by the navy during construction.
>>28476670
Because the VLS on burkes are included in their price?
When the battleship takes 5 hits to the armor and keeps on trucking, while that one AShM that slips through sinks your 2 billion dollar burke.
Then you would see the value in armor.
>>28476609
>>28476670
an Iowa class ship cost 100M USD in the 1930's when the budget was laid down, which is about 1.68B USD 2015. the unit cost of a burke, on the other hand is approx 1.84B USD.
>>28476760
what if the missile comes from the direction your 100,000 tons of armor isn't in? are you going to mount it on a swivel to use it as a shield or a bat to swat them out of the sky?
>>28473548
the phantom menace.gif
Why is it that in every thread with the slightest mention of ww2 ships, somehow descends into autists arguing whether or not battleships can be brought back, for fucks sake, is it too much to ask for a good discussion of ww2 ships?!
>>28476760
>Because the VLS on burkes are included in their price?
No, the point is that the two cost nowhere near the fucking same. It's at least an order of magnitude difference in operating costs and build costs, in addition to arming costs.
>When the battleship takes 5 hits to the armor and keeps on trucking, while that one AShM that slips through sinks your 2 billion dollar burke.
A single hit can mission kill your single BB. A single hit, even if it sinks it, will only kill one of the 5 Burkes, leaving you 80% combat effective. It's not even a hard question.
>Then you would see the value in armor.
Nope. No one here sees the value in armor, because we know what it costs in displacement, speed, extra propulsion and unit cost. You're the only fucking potato here that can't understand this.
>>28476772
An Iowa class ship has no VLS, no chopper deck or aviation facilities (not counting seaplane silliness), no CWIS (when it was laid down), no sonar, no AEGIS or equivalent systems, really none of the systems that make a modern warship effective today. You know, the systems that end up costing so much?
BB's should be un mothballed as Artillery Boat's, cuz nothing is sexier than clearing 20 miles inland of the coastline for your invasion
>>28475127
Well don't want to be with the tripfag here but there's actually a list of BBs sunk by torpedo and it's not a long one
6 ships but only three could count as "modern bb's lost in WW2"
Kongo: hit by two eels port side, two boiler rooms flooded, managed to retreat back somehow but then the list got to 45°, lost all power, aft magazine exploded. From the hit to total loss it took about 4 hours.
HMS Barham: hit at near point blank by three torpedoes amidships, instantly capsized to port, exploded after 4 minutes. I'd say this counts as a one shot.
HMS Royal Oak: it was moored at Scapa Flow. A single torpedo struck the bow at 01:04, the crew didn't even realize what exactly was going on, so at 01:16 the submarine repeated its attack unhindered, and all three torpedoes hit amidships. Sunk in minutes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_sunk_by_submarines_by_death_toll
here's the full list
>>28475321
>IJN Kongo
>Hit by 3
The nipship Kongo was hit by two of three torpedoes fired, the third of which sank a destroyer. She was lost when her forward magazine exploded about two and a half hours later.
>HMS Barnham
>Hit by 3
HSM Barnham was hit by three torpedoes detonated in close proximity to each other nearly simultaneously, and so were confused for one torpedo by both sides.
Are people seriously still arguing for Battleships? Yes they are cool and romantic. They're also dumber than brick popsicles.
The War in the Pacific was only going to go one way once the F6F, or even the F4F, took flight.
For surface warfare you have guided missile destroyers, and for bombardment you have SSGNs.
I see your Battleship and raise you two Exocets.
>>28476825
>An Iowa class ship has no VLS, no chopper deck or aviation facilities (not counting seaplane silliness), no CWIS (when it was laid down), no sonar, no AEGIS or equivalent systems, really none of the systems that make a modern warship effective today. You know, the systems that end up costing so much?
That's exactly why I brought it up. The cost of the modernizations alone was another ~2B usd.
>>28473390
>[Millennium Challenge intensifies]
Oh fuck, the Norks are going to magically spawn their suicide migs into immediate striking range of our carrier group with weapons that they couldn't possibly carry?!
And they have instantaneous warp speed bike messengers?!
Face it, Van Riper was nothing more than asspained that he was passed up for promotion and did his best to muck up a communications/coordination trial so that he could go 'SEE I TOLD U GUYS IM A GENIUS'
>>28476856
>>28476904
Ah. I see that now. The stupid is getting so thick in here, you'll have to excuse me a little friendly fire. My bad.
The only way we might see BBs again is if the Navy can get those Railguns finished.
>BBs with multiple Railguns and Nuclear Reactors.
>>28476886
Also: one shot is misleading. No submarine commander would ever fire ONE torpedo at its target, at least not in WW2.
a) torpedoes were EXTREMELY unreliable
b) you can't try again so you fire a salvo to try and maximize your chances of a lethal hit
>>28476901
The war in the pacific would have gone the same way if the US committed to a full battleship fleet
>>28474061
>they know
you just triggered me
Relying on active defenses scares the shit out of me.
>>28474061
remote controlled I hope? Because 500 pilots are much more expensive than one carrier, senpai
>>28476939
Railguns are not bringing back battleships. If railguns were enough of a gamechanger at most they'd bring back nuclear cruisers, but more likely you'd see a reevaluation surface warfare doctrine followed by more of what we'd consider DDGs.
>>28476974
Hell fucking no. If by the same way you mean the opposite way, sure. Battleships were already deprecated in 1939.
>>28477030
not for glorious best korea they aren't
>>28473434
It probably hit the water and skipped into the the side of the ship at a slow speed
>>28476636
How did battleships perform against direct gravity bomb hits?
>>28477066
ask the Tirpitz
>>28476772
I think the better value is in the broke despite the cost difference. More functions in the destroyer than the battleship.
>>28473325
>That photo
Thas was a fucking aircraft 9mm or what?
>>28473485
Hahahahaha
Just like the Missouri amirite?
>>28477110
japanese paper planes
>>28476772
And an Essex cost $90m in 1940s dollarydoos. You seen the pricetage on the Ford class lately?
By that metric a modern BB should cost around $11b
>>28476772
It was a time when ships were being built constantly because, you know, countries knew war was next door. And that drives down price. A LOT.
But yeah as others said the inflated cost of modern ships today is because of the really expensive systems onboard.
>>28477571
also the cost of paying the crew salaries
>>28476886
royal oak was hardly modern, it was a ww1 era revenge class in need of refit and used primarily as a guard ship, and Barham was also of ww1 vintage and in need of a refit, having last been refitted in the mid 30s
>>28476026
Besides being good for distributing experience, rotations give pilots something to work and hope for.
The knowledge that you can earn your ticket to go home and live out your natural life is a damn powerful motivation.
Riding people until they died makes them very fatalistic and saps morale like a motherfucker.
>>28477666
IIRC, the USAAF, USN, USMC and RAF had excellent pilot retention. By which I mean that pilots finishing a training/planning/whatever billet most often rotated back into front line squadrons. Obviously there was loss to promotion (especially within the USN, as promoted flight officers often moved into other carrier roles), but stories of pilots serving 5 tours in a front line squadron are not unheard of. It was a different ballgame for bomber crews, but that's another story altogether.
