Why exactly are battleships considered obsolete /k/?
Wouldn't a large warship with adequate air/sub defence and enough CIWS be usefull?
I thought the USN was looking for a ship for Shore bombardement, wouldn't battleships be perfect for that role?
missiles>guns
>>28693814
What's the point? They're too big, needlessly so.
>>28693823
this
/thread
Because their weapons are short ranged
Because their running costs are incredible
Because they can be killed by anti-ship missiles, aircraft and torpedoes
Because shore bombardment has limited use in modern warfare
Because while you can spend unbelievable quantities of money to develop a battleship that would be survivable against current anti-ship weaponry, someone else will spend a lot less to develop a weapon that can sink it. Distributing firepower across smaller, cheaper assets is the future.
>>28693895
Smaller, not cheaper.
Those six type 45's cost as much to build as all 142 destroyers in the home fleet in WWII.
It's more a doctrinal thing than anything else
Also other than the US & maybe china/russia, noone even maintains much of a fleet anymore.
>>28693835
A ww2 battleship cost a lot, sure
A modern battleship shouldn't cost much more than a destroyer, as material costs are not a big part of the overall price.
The US navy certainly is concerned with subs, mines, and AShM's near enemy shores. Obviously the solution is building 20 "battleships" that are impervious to existing torpedos, mines, or AShM's.
>>28693941
>Obviously the solution is building 20 "battleships" that are impervious to existing torpedos, mines, or AShM's
Fuck off already.
And delete this shitty thread while you're at it.
>>28693941
>"battleships" that are impervious to existing torpedos, mines, or AShM's
>>28693941
>Obviously the solution is building 20 "battleships" that are impervious to existing torpedos, mines, or AShM's.
Well here we fucking go.
You apparently know better than every strategist, acquisitions chief and naval architect.
>>28693953
Naval steel is cheap
Literally NOTHING other than their own egos stops them from making 100k-200k ton battleships, unsinkable by conventional weaponry.
It could sit in mothball 24/7 until a war happens, if operating costs are a problem.
However, it would provide a vast increase in capability for the US navy, I think they certainly should consider it.
>>28693941
>"battleships" that are impervious to existing torpedos, mines, or AShM's
sadfsdfasrfadc
>>28693916
And worth every penny.
>>28693995
You're very stupid.
>>28693814
>Wouldn't a large warship with adequate air/sub defence and enough CIWS be usefull?
>Putting all your eggs in one basket
>>28693824
They're less than half the size of a carrier.
>>28693995
>Literally NOTHING other than their own egos stops them from making 100k-200k ton battleships, unsinkable by conventional weaponry.
this isn't funny, cute, interesting, or clever.
get the fuck off of our board already, kid. let the adults talk about real things.
>>28693970
>>28694001
show me a cruise missile or torpedo doing that to an Iowa m8
>>28693995
>Literally NOTHING other than their own egos stops them from making 100k-200k ton battleships, unsinkable by conventional weaponry.
Do you constantly make these "armoured gunboat" posts just for the replies saying how much of a fucking retard you are?
I want to see more ships blowing up
>>28693995
>Literally NOTHING
Well, there's the Panama Canal. You figure me out a 200,000-ton battleship that can meet even the new PANAMAX and we'll talk.
>>28693941
Good luck making it impervious to tactical nuclear warheads.
>The greatest naval minds ever to exist, who saw the advancements in guided missiles and aircraft decided the battleship was obsolete
>Every navy on the planet stops making them
>"Gee I'm one retard on /k/ I know better than all these people just make invincible ones duh"
>>28693970
That's an unarmored transport that didn't sink.
>>28694035
>>28694018
This is literally the same reasoning that led them to believe the future would be all light 20 ton wheeled tanks.
The reason for the US's focus on unarmored destroyers is their need to be CARRIER ESCORTS FIRST, everything else second.
And a diesel fueled ship can't keep up with a nuke if it had armor.
As well there was the assumption that the AShM's would be nuclear tipped.
>>28694087
>This is literally the same reasoning that led them to believe the future would be all light 20 ton wheeled tanks.
Said nobody ever, huh.
>>28694092
Thats what the FCS was all about
Maybe not all wheeled.
>>28694087
>And a diesel fueled ship can't keep up with a nuke if it had armor.
Not true given that an Iowa could outrun an Arleigh Burke
>>28694034
We'll use more than one
>>28693941
Sigh..
We do seem to do this damn thread once a week now. WWII Iowa battleships would be for the most part immune to majority of current Anti-Ship Missiles (not counting Nuclear Warheads). Couple Anons did Math and Structrual program based testing on mass/energy of a few ASM's based the armor to include the new LRASM and most would do fuck all or barely damage the armor.
Now we also looked at the GBU-28 and found it would slice right the fuck through the most heavily armored part of the Iowa's (Superstructure at 17.3"). This is important because the GBU-28 had a whopping 3 weeks of Design, Manufacture to Bombs on target in Iraq. This shows that if something stupidly heavily armored "did" hit the Sea's then it would be a matter of weeks before we could adapt a missile or create a new once to specifically penetrate/kill such a hard target.
Other items to bring up is pretty much any current ATGM down to RPG-7's could penetrate any part of the Iowa's but would only cause a very small pin hole in the armor and not do any lasting damage unless it perfectly hit something explosive on the other side.
CBU-100 Cluster Bombs (Mk 20 Rockeye's) would be stopped mostly by the Upper Deck/Splinter Deck but would Swiss Cheese the Turrets themselves and if penetrating a loaded chamber, cause catastrophic damage to the ship.
TL:DR - There already exist a lot of shit than can kill battleships that just isn't primarily suited to attacking ships.
TL:DR - Your idea is fucking stupid.
>>28694117
No it can't.
>>28694131
Maybe you should go look that up.
>>28694118
The Soviets weren't even convinced that the Kirov had enough to take down an Iowa.
>>28694087
>This is literally the same reasoning that led them to believe the future would be all light 20 ton wheeled tanks.
Who the fuck said anything about that?
Are you even reading the replies you're getting?
>>28694138
The reported top speed of an Arliegh burke is over 30 Knots. It's actual top speed is classified. The top speed of an Iowa is a maximum of 35 knots, It's top speed is not classified. Nimitz class carriers reported speed is also over 30 knots. gain it's actual top speed is classified
>>28694175
>>28694138
Addendum: Only the New Jersey Ever reached the top speed of 35 knots. Al the other Iowa's topped out at 32
>>28693814
>yet again BBfags fail to face the reality of their delusions
>>28694145
Bullshit.
>>28693814
The Russians are sticking with it, but they did have to lose the guns.
>>28694220
so are the missiles in those silos ready to go 24/7? because if they are that thing is going to make a spectacular light show if it gets hit
>46,000 tons
>13.8 in of armour
>Sunk by two guided bombs a fraction of the size and speed of any Russian anti-ship missile or American bunker-buster.
1) armor is expensive
2) armor is heavy
You're much better off making a smaller ship that's better on fuel, cheaper, lighter, and has advanced countermeasures and anti-missile weapons.
Shore bombardment doesn't need 9 16" guns. Of you need volume of fire, the 5" guns on modern ships can satisfy that. If you need penetration or heavy ordnance, you have cruise missiles.
The amount of armor it would take to provide adequate protection against AShMs and standoff weapons would make the ship ridiculous.
In WWII, the Yamato and Musashi were both sunk by planes. They had the thickest armor, the biggest guns, but it didn't matter.
A modern battleship would be a retarded waste of time. Would probably cost as much as a super carrier, but with a fraction of the capability. A carrier has the ability to strike enemies hundreds of miles away. A battleship is a few dozen. You could say "well just mount tons of cruise missiles and anti-missile defenses on it" but then what's the point? You could have multiple cruisers/destroyers with the same or more cruise missiles, AShMs, and anti-missile defenses, but without lumping everything in one big slow expensive ship that will have a massive radar signature and get the shit bombed out of it from hundreds of miles away
Seriously, this idea needs to die.
>>28694218
Nope. One of their admirals even said it was the biggest threat the US Navy had.
>>28694117
You're full of shit. The fastest of the Iowas could only do 35. I know for fact that Burkes can push close to 40 knots.
>>28694220
thats a lot of bakelite
>>28694292
No it wasn't.
>>28694262
Uh. Yeah, pretty much. Are the guns on a battleship always ready to go at a moment's notice?
>>28694316
More bullshit.
>>28694316
>One of their admirals even said it was the biggest threat the US Navy had.
News at 10, Russia hypes up its own equipment in the face of reality.
>>28694339
Look up "Battleship Roma"
Fuck me, not this thread again.
>>28694316
>One of their admirals even said it was the biggest threat the US Navy had
Was this by chance 70 fucking years ago
>>28694301
Steel is very cheap
200,000 tons of it wouldn't come close to the cost of a Burke
Keep all the other costs under control, and they should be very affordable ships.
A modern battleship is clearly not going to serve the same role that a WW2 battleship was designed for.
But for the same reason we keep tanks on land, I think an armored battleship of one sort or another would be very important on the seas.
Hey guys, what if we took blimps and airships and put missiles and shit on them and made them modern? That would be cool right?
Hey guys what if we made soldiers ride horses but put body armor on the horses and let the soldiers use heavy machine guns, that would work right?
Ugh
>>28694384
>sunk by armor piercing bombs
Not even comparable to cruise missiles made to take out unarmored ships, but nice effort.
>>28694316
>One of their admirals even said it was the biggest threat the US Navy had
and?
do you not understand that "the biggest threat" is not the same thing as "an insuperable threat"?
the biggest threat to me right now is tripping on the way to my fridge. that doesn't mean I can't arrive alive.
if the "biggest threat" to something is fairly inconsequential, that's a statement of inferiority, not superiority.
>>28694011
>worth it
>147 ship against 6
>upgraded to hold anti ship missiles, one of those 147 ships could sink all 6 chinease
>still worth it
GFTO communist sympathizer
>>28694427
No.
>>28694262
If the missiles work as well in practice as they do on paper, getting that shot would be a dicey proposition for a lot of ships.
>>28694397
No, right after the retrofit.
>>28694427
Repeating your stupidity doesn't make it less stupid.
>>28693814
Look op, I appreciate the idea of a giant battleship covered in 18 inch guns. I really do. Thinking of a giant nuclear powered ocean tank with little missiles that shoot down planes and little guns that shoot down missiles makes my peepee hard. But it's a fantasy. In the military, everything and everybody is expendable. Spending more than what a carrier costs to develop and build a ship with nowhere close to the effective range of a carrier is a waste of resources. It's not feasible.
>>28694427
>Steel is very cheap
You know what's cheaper? Talk is. Talk is always cheap.
You got a pricing for that 200, 000 tons of navy grade steel?
>>28694456
>pulling this much out of your ass
This is hilarious.
>>28694449
>implying a WWII bomb has better penetration than modern anti-ship missiles
>implying there aren't missiles designed to penetrate armored bunkers
Seriously?
>>28694502
>says the BBfag to the kettle
>>28694499
I see a buncha numbers under 1000 dollars a ton when I google it.
>>28694525
Going through concrete is easier than steel.
Especially when your missile/bomb has been shattered by APS.
>>28694502
?
it's the english language, it's not difficult. try and learn how it works sometime so you don't make such a silly mistake in the future.
>>28694487
Except
A: It wouldn't cost close to that much
B: The navy themselves think they need upwards of 100 miles from hostile shores to intercept and destroy inbound missiles
Of course they would have use for a battleship there, going much closer than their expensive fragile destroyers/cruisers/carriers could.
Which is what the Iowa's did in the Gulf War.
>>28694499
Well, just going by the cost of the Iowa class back in the 40s, adjusted for inflation they cost almost 1.4 Billion USD in 2016 dollars.
And before you battleship fags get excited and say "but that's cheaper than an arleigh Burke class!", let me remind you that that's the cost with the 1940s equipment. Aka 16" guns, 5" secondaries, a bunch of 20mm AA, etc. Aka would instantly get raped on the modern battlefield by even 1970s era anti-ship missiles.
Add the cost of modernizing the sensors, adding VLS tubes, countermeasures, modern radar, etc. And good luck with that price tag.
>>28694016
Which needlessly big for what they can do.
Carriers are as big as they are for a reason.
>>28694546
>I see a buncha numbers under 1000 dollars a ton when I google it.
WOW
ARE YOU ACTUALLY USING COMMODITY STEEL AS THE BASIS FOR YOUR PRICING?! AHAHAHHAAH
literal comedy gold people
>>28694546
>implying armored bunkers aren't reinforced by steel
>implying there aren't bunkers that are harder to penetrate than a battleships armor
Oh so you're planning to coat the entire battleship in APS? Lol how's that price tag looking? You're worried about one or two missiles? How about a dozen? Can it survive that?
>>28694565
>A: It wouldn't cost close to that much
You're delusional
>B: The navy themselves think they need upwards of 100 miles from hostile shores to intercept and destroy inbound missiles
And you're a liar
>>28694546 see >>28694119
I did the math Weeks ago, GBU-28 would pen an Iowa with ease.
Released GBU-28 test data has it penetrating "over 20ft of Reinforced Concrete"
Now I can't remember the exact numbers off my head and don't care to track all the sources down again but US Army Testing for penetration of different barriers based off an Explosively formed projectile gave a ratio for RHA vs Reinforced concrete that ended up giving an equivalent of 52" RHA penetration based off 20 ft concrete. Ballistic Penetration ratio came out to be 28" RHA penetration equivalent.
Either way Iowa gets penetration.
>>28694565
>Which is what the Iowa's did in the Gulf War.
And you're just ignoring the gunfire support provided by destroyers and frigates.
>>28694610
Looks like ive got some fun things to try in CMANO when I get home later. Time to drop some standoff missiles and bombs on an Iowa, maybe some JASSMs or even just tomahawks.
>>28694573
AKA a whole buncha shit that was extremely manpower intensive and is totally unneeded today.
Steel is cheaper now than it was then too.
>>28694594
Not only that, but
>a warship only costs what its materials do
This is some high-grade autism at work here.
>>28694655
>Civilian ship builder can build a ship massing 150,000 tons for 350 million
>~Military~ ship builders need 700+ million just for 10,000 tons
Is it the unions? Or just greed?
>>28694674
Uh, building warships require special skills held only by certain companies, which must operate under the burden of government standards and restrictions, which ramps up the cost.
This is why companies bid against each other. If they could build it for cheaper, they would.
>>28694644
Ok so a modern battleship wouldn't have any guns? It would just have a bunch of missiles like a cruiser or destroyer?
So literally the only difference is the armor? You're literally saying you think the US should make a Ticonderoga with fucking 20" of steel armor and APS? Lol....
Ok people, let's build a modern, 21st Century ready Battleship!
Let's start off with the hull of the USS Iowa, and scale the hull up so the shit would be ~60,000 tonnes. Now, gut the insides and the weapons. Engines are gone too.
New powerplant is 2 A1B nuclear reactors. The same ones used on the Ford.
128 megajoule railguns will be installed in the locations of the first and third gun turrets.
All of the 5" guns are being replaced with Phalanxes and RIM-116 RAMs.
Ok, now for the fun shit. VLS cells in the place of the second gun turret, where the Tomahawks were previously stored, and everywhere else they can fit them.
>>28694713
Stop this.
My penis can only get so erect.
>>28693814
It's an ASM magnet (there's a reason why the Burke has stealth characteristics and the Zumwalt is designed for stealth). As for its supposed invulnerability, you can't armor the sensitive electronics that modern naval warfare necessitates for a combatant to be effective. A single well-place shot will take it out of the battle and then you'd be wishing all that money was spent buying more destroyers/cruisers instead.
>>28694713
I get Congress to pull funding for a new DD design.
>>28694674
Or the fact that a cargo shio just needs to be a bigass hull with engines and space to carry cargo containers.
A military ship needs missiles, guns, countermeasures, ECM, advanced radar and computer systems, protective measures, etc etc.
It's like wondering why a civilian company can make a giant semi truck that weighs as much as some tanks, but costs waaayyy less than an MBT does.
>>28694751
>It's like wondering why a civilian company can make a giant semi truck that weighs as much as some tanks, but costs waaayyy less than an MBT does.
This.
>>28694735
>you can't armor the sensitive electronics that modern naval warfare necessitates for a combatant to be effective.
The exposed components can be made cheap, hardened, and retractable.
For spotting cruise missiles coming over the horizon, its wild overkill to have radars capable of spotting ICBM's at 2000 miles
For the purposes of an AShM magnet modern battleship, you would probably dump the radar altogether and rely on drones with their own radars.
>>28694751
>Shipbuilding contracts for DDG-113 to DDG-115 were awarded in mid-2011 for $679.6m–$783.6m;[47] these do not include government-furnished equipment such as weapons and sensors which will take the average cost of the FY2011/12 ships to US$1,842.7m per vessel
Except they literally are producing the empty hull of the ship, for 800 million dollars
>>28694697
>>28694751
there's also the fact that civilian ships have to be produced cheap enough to be profitable for their owners, whereas warships don't have that problem. it doesn't *really* matter how expensive they are, so long as they can do their job.
no matter what they cost, they're being operated at a loss from the start.
>>28693814
too slow for what they bring to the dance
>>28694793
>2016
>talking like having better radar isn't that important in modern naval combat
>being this retarded
And yeah, the empty hull is still going to have features beyond a cargo ship.
>>28694793
>Except they literally are producing the empty hull of the ship, for 800 million dollars
But they aren't?
>>28694858
>Radar
>relevant
>in naval combat
Horizon is less than 20 miles away
You will never be spotting another ship on your own radar
This isn't WW2 anymore
Nor is anyone other than the US building stealth missiles
Yes, i understand that, but we are talking about armor here.
So it's essentially building a burke.... plus 50,000 tons of steel armor, and bigger engines.
>>28694890
Ohh hoh hoh
this is some dirt cheap bait anon
>>28694890
I'm well aware of what the radar horizon is.
But really, by your logic, please explain why every naval warship in the world tries to have as good a radar as possible?
Or do you think that it wouldn't be important for a modern BB to be able to detect incoming missiles or planes?
Gimme a break. This idea is more retarded the more you try and explain it.
>>28694931
I am going off your claim that all this sensitive electronics would magically be destroyed by a single hit, and that it would be impossible to harden it or provide sufficient redundancies.
This also makes the assumption that a battleship is more at risk to missiles than Burkes, Ticos, LCS, etc
In such a situation, you could do without an expensive fragile radar.
And for spotting missiles/planes at close range, you don't need a big or expensive radar.
>>28695021
Not him
If anything you are the one making a claim that this can all be done on the cheap.
And that you don't need a big or expensive radar.
So, you got any proof for either claims?
>>28695021
>>28695021
I never made that claim. Wrong person.
A battleship would be more at risk to missiles simply because it would be bigger, slower, easier to detect on radar, etc.
Lol please tell me more about how this battleship is going to survive missile salvos without the ability to even detect them with radar.
>>28695021
So basically your battleship cannot operate independently of pickets for air-defense and neither can it operate the powerful radars Burkes and Ticos operate because you need its radars to be retractable and armored? Well shit.
>This also makes the assumption that a battleship is more at risk to missiles than Burkes, Ticos, LCS, etc
No it makes the assumption that Battleships are just as vulnerable as the rest of the fleet but bring considerably less utility than say a Burke with its powerful air-defense radars and helicopter facilities (the later blocks at least) or a carrier with its airwing.
>>28695068
>how this battleship is going to survive missile salvos without the ability to even detect them with radar
Not that guy, but...why not just put a radar on the ship?
Is that not how this is typically accomplished?
>>28693974
Well, he doesn't have a part time six figures garuntee retirement package with LockMart to look forward to. Because he's not an Admiral. So, that's a thing.
>>28695082
>So basically your battleship cannot operate independently of pickets for air-defense
Like every other naval ship due to a thing called "the horizon"
>and neither can it operate the powerful radars Burkes and Ticos operate
It could, if it wanted to, if the mission & role of the ship called for it.
>but bring considerably less utility
They would bring literally exactly the same utility, as nothing stops you from putting exactly the same components into a battleship, than into a Burke, or into a carrier if you want to go that way.
So it goes into a question of sacrificing speed/endurance for armor that would massively increase survivability vs AShM's or torpedoes.
During the cold war this was decided by the assumption that all those AShM's or Torps would be nuclear tipped, hence armor is a waste of time.
Nowadays, the thought of a conflict automatically going nuclear seems rather dated.
>>28694713
Now THIS I would fund.
Oh yes supreme commander coming to life!
>>28695308
>Like every other naval ship due to a thing called "the horizon"
Carriers have this nifty plane called the E2 whose sole purpose is to carry a bigass radar, look at the horizon, and laugh at it.
>>28695347
And our battleship would have an AWAC's blimp tethered to it.
Problem solved.
>>28695388
Oh yes, just have a huge "HEY LOOK OUR BATTLESHIP IS RIGHT OVER HERE" floating above it. Lets not consider how the E-2 can move independently of the fleet to get into better positions as to not lead enemy scouts back to its carrier or in fact ruse entire enemy fleets from its presence alone.
>>28695433
>Oh yes, just have a huge "HEY LOOK OUR BATTLESHIP IS RIGHT OVER HERE" floating above it.
Nigger you're retarded, we're discussing distances so vast that they are literally beyond the visible horizon, and you think that a goddamn balloon is going to give away your position?
This isn't the 15th century anymore, naval warfare is a little more complicated these days.
>>28695433
>You say "All radars, sensors, and communications would be destroyed by a hit! So armor is pointless!"
>I say "So the necessary radars can be outsourced to drones, AWACS, other ships"
>You say "Now your Battleship is COMPLETELY BLIND! How can it survive this AShM swarm that noone in the world is capable of firing!"
>>28695450
If it's radiating, they'll spot it right away, and when they realize its not moving as fast as an AEW plane should, they now know the battleship is.
>>28695450
Visual horizon is like 20 miles from a warship. It's not a vast distance.
>>28695450
>says the advocate for battleships
>>28695475
That battleship still needs all the necessary electronics and computers to actually make use of remote radar systems. AEGIS capability is not cheap.
this thread has completely devolved to shitposting.
all hands, abandon ship.
>>28695476
And they fire their missile salvo at it, discovering that the AWAC's blimp is just a decoy anchored onto an unmanned boat
Wasting 1 billion dollars in missiles, and a squadron of irreplaceable bombers.
>>28695504
Yes, but we're already building that on every existing ship, so its no added cost.
Guys.
Guys.
Why not just put
Guys.
Why not just put two 16" guns on a burke hull instead of a 200k ton battleship with a crew of 2000 and a pricetag higher than the entire economy of the countries it would be deployed against?
>>28695542
>Why not just put two 16" guns on a burke hull
See: literally the first reply on this thread
>>28695542
because that's stupid and pointless.
>>28693835
> shore bombardment has limited use in modern warfare
Well no shit Sherlock, if you completely abandon contested amphibious assault capabilities. Which we have.
You're right, we don't need amphibious assault for these silly nonsense colonial peacekeeping "wars" we've been fighting for decades now.
Until we do, that is. And we don't have it. And one day, Americans will die. Because we listened to faggot peacetime Admirals who were only looking to make themselves a comfy retirement and LockMart a fat profit.
There's a word what the USN has done to our nation, anon:
Treason.
>>28695542
And sacrifice space for the VLS cells? Why would you do that.
>>28694907
People keepiny saying that in this (and other, similar, threads) but as dirt cheap as it is, people keep taking the bait.
/k/ has a real problem with that.
>>28695556
Well it's kind of hard to do a massive D-Day style amphibious assault on Afghanistan no matter which angle you take.
>>28694459
>You could get 142 ships with how much it costs for those 6!
>and, they're better! all you have to do is sink costs into them upgrad- oh
>>28695556
>There's a word what the USN has done to our nation, anon:
>Treason.
Ooookay kiddo, reel that autism back in.
>>28695450
A balloon carrying a radar of the same capability of a destroyer or an AWACS would be like a bigass beacon in the sky. Radar works both ways.
So yes, having a bigass balloon over your ship basically means everyone will detect where your battleship is from hundreds of miles away
>>28695558
How about 16 inch guns that shoot missiles?
>>28695567
>Well it's kind of hard to do a massive D-Day style amphibious assault on Afghanistan no matter which angle you take.
>not putting legs on your battleships and landing craft
>>28695603
>if you have a radar you will DIE
>that's only true of battleships though!
oh god, why am I even lurking this thread
>>28695618
>not putting legs on your battleships and landing craft
Finally we're getting somewhere with this thread.
The rest of you chucklefucks should follow Anon's example here and post some useful ideas. Enough whining about radar, please.
>>28694063
Argument from authority, faggot.
You have not contributed to this thread whatsoever.
Kill yourself.
>>28695556
When will there ever be a need for a contested amphibious landing?
What can a battleship parked within artillery range of the enemy coast do that tomahawks from hundreds of miles away can't do better?
>>28695634
If you want to take the idea to the logical extreme you would deploy your walking battleships from gliders towed by a number of C-5s.
>>28695621
Its all about how you use it. Burkes, being pickets, are often tasked with lighting up when needed, especially if there's an incoming air threat. They also datalink with AWACS to get advance warning. Carriers normally don't radiate at all because they don't need to. The AWACS picks up an enemy fleet or air wing? Carrier launches a strike or CAP flight to respond while its hundreds of miles away. All a battleship can do is either run away are charge like it was Ten Go 2.0
>>28694213
This pic is posted every time a anybody mentions a BB. You are weak and lame.
>>28695621
What?
This faggot suggested putting a bigass balloon with a powerful radar tethered in the sky above the battleship as a way to replace the AEW abilities of destroyers with helicopters or a carrier with planes.
It was pointed out that having that balloon over the ship would make it give it's position away extremely easily because radar is a big emitter that can be seen for a long distance.
What are you struggling with?
>>28695637
>Argument from authority
If the argument is from an actual authority on the subject in question then its not a fallacy you chucklefuck
>>28695621
My god, you are autistic.
He is saying a battleship does not have the same capability as a carrier with an E-2 but they still require the same amount of defenses to surround them and that balloons are fucking retarded because they give away your location by the fact that they cannot fly independently like a fixed wing aircraft.
>>28695698
>It was pointed out that having that balloon over the ship would make it give it's position away extremely easily because radar is a big emitter that can be seen for a long distance.
Bzzt, nope, wrong. Nobody said anything even remotely like that.
Try again.
Isn't the Zumwalt-class, and modern destroyers in general. similar in size and displacement to WW1 dreadnoughts?
They have much more powerful and effective weaponry than any conventional naval gun anyways and apparently armor is shit regardless. The whole concept seems kind of pointless unless you're wanting to build an arsenal ship
>thinks a battleship with its own spotting blimp has a place in modern naval warfare
>be stuck in 1920s
Hey guys, while you're all here, do you think we could replace helicopters with gliders for tactical insertions?
>>28695575
>wanting out of date equipment
>still, without upgrades could plow throw those ships without even firing
Lol, stay mad chink
>>28695766
Yes, if they are launched from submersible carriers.
>>28695758
>Thinks battleships are obsolete because multi-billion dollar AShM swarms will destroy their sensitive electronics
>Meanwhile that same AShM swarm would sink a whole CSG
The question is not "What would it cost to produce a modern battleship"
It's "What would it cost to add 40,000 tons of armor to a Burke"
>>28695685
How big would a glider that could carry an Iowa-class need to be?
>>28695388
>>28695734
"And our battleship would have an AWAC's blimp tethered to it.
Problem solved."
Read the thread nigger.
What we really need are armored, 60,000 ton gliders with 18 inch guns.
The only reason we don't have them is the cowardice of the navy higher-ups.
There is but one, word, gentlemen, that describes what the USN has done to us by depriving us of the armored glider:
Treason
>>28695795
To carry 45,000 tons? About the size of Manhattan Island, I'd say.
>>28695795
>How big would a glider that could carry an Iowa-class need to be?
It’s a simple question of weight ratios.
>>28695811
Gotta put legs on them so they can operate in mountains and swamps. And be able to dodge incoming fire.
>>28695795
>Inserting an Iowa class battleship into the Caspian Sea via massive glider.
I never knew I wanted this before.
>>28695809
That's...wow. That's not at all what you said.
Seriously, try again. I'll give you one more shot.
>>28695694
no u
>>28695791
Well, a CSG at least has the means to defend itself against an AShM swarm.
The only way to give a battleship the same would be to make it surrounded by a strike group. So the only difference is that the flagship is a bigass armored ship instead of a bigass carrier.
Aka, like you said, is it worth making a Burke the flagship and adding thousands of tons of armor to it.
>>28695308
So basically it can potentially mount every modern electronics a modern DDG and CG can but only having short range guns?
So basically it's gonna have the same amount of pickets and defenses as a CSG but having none of the utility?
>>28695783
But what if its a landlocked country? Could the submersible carriers have legs to make them mechs?
>>28695859
Glide them in of course, they can even use their own aircraft to tow them.
>>28695859
At that point what do you need the gliders for?
>>28695822
Not really. The materials gliders are made out of can't be scaled up to the size of something about to support 45,000 tons, they'd collapse under their own weight if you did.
It's the same reason you can't build a twenty story wood framed building.
>>28694292
No bully
>>28695843
Lol you're confused aren't you?
Someone, idk if it was you, claimed that to overcome the lack of detection ability of a BB, they could attach a balloon with a radar.
It was pointed out that a large radar like that is a strong emitter and easily detected, and having it tethered to the battleship basically means it's a beacon showing the location of the ship, something that can be avoided with the AEW planes of a carrier.
Try reading the thread again. Maybe take a nap and come back.
>>28694292
Only the turret was armored with 14 inches. The deck had 6 inches of armor.
>>28695791
So basically "let's building something with all the vulnerabilities of a carrier but with none of the advantages"?
>>28695567
Yeah no shit. D-day was hard too.
But it might be necessary. Obviously, a future d-day will look totally different from the last time. Weapons change, but the capability to blow a hole in enemy defenses and land heavies in the beach is eternal. This is a strategic consideration.
What the fuck are we paying USMC for?
>>28695863
>>28695871
But there are some obstacles that gliders can't overcome, like barrage balloons. Duh.
The legs are the best of both worlds, they'd defeat barrage balloons AND could avoid anti-tank obstacles.
>>28695923
How about legs that can fold into wings?
>>28695875
Hey, you. I don't think you understand what's happening here.
Its the twenty first century, we don't make shit out of pig iron anymore, they'd use modern composities and nano-carbon tubes to make it strongerer.
>>28695920
D-day was not a contested landing
Inchon was not a contested landing
Noone has ever done contested landings
All that happened was a bunch old buncha generals deciding to reenact WW1 charges into machine guns.
Then they pretend like there was actual serious fighting going on.
When in reality, they are just a buncha fucking retards for not bringing armor to the fight.
The big joke is that 80 years on, modern amphibious doctrine, at least by America, is to bring no armor to the fight.
>>28695955
If only they developed mechs rather than amphibious tanks.
>>28695932
....yes....YES.
Mech-gliders, don't know why I didn't think of that in the first place.They could glide to the barrage balloons then land and use their superior mech agility to navigate tank obstacles.
We nee a drawfag up in here.
>>28695975
>submarine aircraft carrier with 16 inch guns, gliding into battle on wings that fold into legs, towed by its own aircraft
>>28695975
can we make them submersible and capable of launching aircraft?
>>28695585
You say autism, I say the USN are overpaid undertrained mislead incompetent welfarebaby retards.
Sure is easy life in a peacetime Navy...
>>28695901
>Try reading the thread again. Maybe take a nap and come back.
I don't really care, nerd. I was just fucking with you.
>>28695955
>fucking retards for not bringing armor to the fights
>reenact WW1 charges into machine guns
Kill yourself. Stop browsing, turn off your PC and fucking end your own life.
>>28695955
>D-day was not a contested landing
Good thing the Atlantic Wall wasn't there, wasn't it? They'd have really been in trouble if it had.
>>28695917
A Burke hit by an AShM or torpedo is sunk
An armored ship hit by an AShM or Torpedo is damaged but still mostly functional.
>>28695847
>Only lightly armored destroyers can provide air defense or anti-missile
uh huh
Do you not understand where we are going with this?
>>28695875
>Not really.
he's quoting monty python you dork
>>28695769
Thank you for being a namefaggot so I can filter you
>>28695791
So what you're saying is... "lets tank the missile hit and hope nothing important breaks" as opposed to "let's not get detected, shot at and hit in the first place"?
Amazing, the USN needs more minds like you.
>>28695995
>>28695995
Towed by drones actually. But the drones can land mini-mech drones for clearing bunkers.
>>28695996
Waaaaaay ahead of ya.
>>28696026
You know
Just a little while ago this sort of thinking was the norm in regards to ground combat
"Who needs armor in this age of precision weaponry and long ranged sensors??"
And then it was discovered they were totally full of shit, and nothing can replace the ability to take a hit.
Unfortunately there has been no relevant naval combat for over a century, so they have no practical experience to guide their doctrinal thinking.
>>28696061
Thousands of little drones launched from the flight deck of Zumwalts?
>>28696010
>>28696012
The actual defenses on the beaches were quite light
And failures at dieppe, omaha, or market garden are directly contributed to the lack of armor at them.
>>28693814
Why don't you ask the useless Hotel why people don't use battle ships any more
>>28696088
It's almost like the Allies chose to attack weak points or something.
>>28696067
Except modern armor is still extremely vulnerable to modern threats. There's a reason why even MBT crews are trained to avoid being seen or sighted if at all possible because no tank is going to survive a modern ATGM hitting them in the side or rear.
>>28696016
>An armored ship hit by an AShM or Torpedo is damaged but still mostly functional.
Hahaha, anon you cad. So it's basically a carrier in that, unlike the Burke, it's a giant bulleye and unlike a carrier, doesn't have aircraft.
>uh huh Do you not understand where we are going with this?
Yeah, something more expensive than a Burke with the survivability of a carrier, right? Or rather something like a giant bullseye without the flexibility of a carrier.
>>28696111
Also it's relatively easy to armor a tank because you can build more than 4 of them, don't weigh 100,000 tons, and don't cost 4 billion dollars per unit.
>>28696067
>>28696067
>people in major militaries have ever, for any length of time advocated completely removing armour from all aspects of the ground battlefield
>since their inception MBT's have ever been removed from service and replace with lightly armoured vehicles
I must have missed that bit.
Point is, you CANNOT ARMOUR A FUCKING BB TO A POINT WHERE IT CAN 'TANK' A FUCKING ANTI-FUCKING-SHIPPING-MISSILE.
>>28696016
>A Burke hit by an AShM or torpedo is sunk
>An armored ship hit by an AShM or Torpedo is damaged but still mostly functional.
The USS Stark would like to have a word with you.
>>28696116
Except now we come back to the fact that armor would be very cheap to add in relation to the cost of these ships.
>>28696100
Obviously
To call them "contested landings" is to deliberately deceive. The Germans had garrisons of women and children at these relatively low value locations.
This is how you can tell the US has abandoned any serious attempt at maintaining amphibious assault capability.
>>28696088
>The actual defenses on the beaches were quite light
We avoided the heavily defended parts
>And failures at dieppe, omaha, or market garden are directly contributed to the lack of armor at them.
Has nothing to do with the fact that the commanders on D-day weren't 'fucking retards who didn't bring armor', they did bring armour.
Dieppe had armor too. That failed because we didn't know what we were doing.
They did bring armour to Omaha, it just sunk en route (again though, that doesn't mean that they'd planned to not use it'. It didn't fail.
Operation Market Garden did fail due to a lack of armour, as in we failed to punch our way through to the besieged paratroops (it was too great a dstance, but really, if it had been planned better Market Garden could have been a phenomenol success).
>>28696067
BUT anon, taking cover and knowing when to shoot is better than all the fucking body armor in the world. Course body armor is great for when you are shot but when it has a giant fucking bullseye on it that prevents you from using cover effectively... I'm sorry.
>>28696158
It's not as simple as slapping on extra armor panels. You'd have to completely redesign the ship in order to accomodate and properly distribute that extra weight.
>>28696158
>The Germans had garrisons of women and children at these relatively low value locations.
Is this bait? Are you fishing? I mean you've got me.
>>28695822
Are you implying that battleships migrate?
>>28696177
So now we're talking about submersible battleships? You know I get mocked every time i bring that up
>>28696158
>Enough effective armor not requiring fundamental design changes like increased size and power consumption
Yeah call me when they discover adamantium.
>>28694446
if we had armored robot cavalry that'd be fucking awesome
new age dragoons riding on big dogs carrying M2s, AGLs, and mortars
>>28693835
>Because shore bombardment has limited use in modern warfare
>Because shore bombardment is performed at an arms length via Tomahawks and F-18s in modern warfare
Fixed that for you.
All in all your list is pretty good except I think you could have included a blurb about the mass penalties associated with armoring a ship versus the amount of actual protection said armor provides.
>>28694573
but what would the price be if they went straight to the modern gear instead of first going with archaic gear and then changing that all out for modern gear?
>>28696111
Except modern armor + APS is being shown to be 100% effective against ATGM's.
And a ship is able to pack far more armor on than a tank because a ship doesn't have to worry about getting stuck in mud or collapsing bridges.
>>28696204
Uparmored Submarines!!! You can tank all the torpedoes they throw at you and ram their ships like a modern Captain Nemo.
>>28694713
>New powerplant is 2 A1B nuclear reactors. The same ones used on the Ford.
Which means shit because the limiting factor in speed is the hull length/width ratio
>>28696003
>acting retarded
>gets called retarded
>lol nerd I was just pretending
>pretending to be retarded means you're actually retarded
>>28694713
>VLS... where the Tomahawks were previously stored
You aren't fitting a vertical anything in the space allotted to the armored box launchers. It's not that tall and there's shit under it.
>>28694565
Yeah, but the Iowa's in the gulf war were never in any danger of missile attacks
>>28696133
Of course, in three years you won't have to. US is getting laser anti-missile systems this year.
>>28696280
A ship has other things to worry about such as not sinking or capsizing under its own weight.
And no, despite what the salesmen tell you, APS and composite armor are not 100% effective. No armor is.
>>28696158
>the US has abandoned any serious attempt at maintaining amphibious assault capability
You're making a great spectacle of yourself, keep it up
Are battleship fag and glider fag the same fag?
>>28696133
>you CANNOT ARMOUR A FUCKING BB TO A POINT WHERE IT CAN 'TANK' A FUCKING ANTI-FUCKING-SHIPPING-MISSILE
Sure you can.
It just requires sacrificing things like speed, range, maneuverability, and non-armor mass available for such things as fuel and armaments. Until all you are left with is an expensive slow piece of shit with barely anything for combat systems despite displacing a berchillion tons
>>28696434
They are probably both Sparky. Pretty sure that obese schizoid posts here on the regular.
>>28696434
yes, probably sub airacraft carrier fag too
>>28696194
>Are you implying that battleships migrate?
Not at all. They could be carried.
>>28695613
How about VLS cells that launch 16 inch guns.
>>28694351
>>28694362
>>28694397
Sergei Gorshkov, Commander in Chief of the Soviet Navy
> You Americans do not realize what formidable warships you have in these four battleships. We have concluded after careful analysis that these magnificent ships 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 bounce off or be of little effect. Then when we are exhausted, we will detect you coming over the horizon and then you will sink us.
https://books.google.com/books?id=UFpEBgAAQBAJ&pg=PT215
Last paragraph on the page.
To be completely fair, he was fond of hyping up the Iowa class battleships as a way to get more Kirovs and other major projects funded.
Well honesty a battleship's only usefulness would be to field massive rail guns for use against cities or enemy warships.
It also could be fitted with a massive amount of AA an anti missile batteries.
Overall it is a waste yes but it is pretty much a great way of getting into a pissing contest with someone.
>>28693916
>Those six type 45's cost as much to build as all 142 destroyers in the home fleet in WWII.
"I dont understand the concept of inflation: the post"
7 F35s cost more than every single P51 Mustang built in WW2.
>>28696795
>The could be carried
one under each carrier Wing?
>>28698849
IT RUNS ON MONEY
>>28695564
Tbh modern battleship threads are the most interesting thing on /k/ lately.
My perception on the role armour and durability in general plays in the role of modern naval warfare is the concept of what you could term as 'cutoff points' or 'minimum standard'.
Basically, a point where you can just shrug off rinkidink masses of 'swarm' weapons that can't be convievably tracked or engaged by your own guns in sufficient numbers, which I perceive is likely the easiest way for an asymmetrical force to achieve kills (besides mines).
Its basically like 'you must be this tall to go on this ride' as applied to design strategies. Making a bigger stick to poke through a harder target is easy, but bigger sticks are harder to deploy en mass. The point is to make it so that they have to make their sticks just big enough so its easy for *you* to hit them, and that they can't just throw them away carelessly.
I think protection from under water explosions is the biggest factor though. If a plane wants to drop a bunker buster or something on you, he needs to be in position first, and will always be vulnerable to being shot down. Armoring against above water damage is less important. Under water detection is much more difficult though, and really there is little way to know for sure if a sub is coming until they have already fired (I think ways to hard kill incoming torpedoes are the most important area of development in near term naval technology).
>>28700612
Excuse me, this kind of well thought-out and rational discussion is not welcome here. Please stick to shitposting and repeating memes you heard on other websites.
Thank you.
>>28694262
In case of Pyotr Velikiy's P-700. Missiles are old and end of their service life. Admiral Nakhimov is currently undergoing refit that will replace P-700 with much smaller P-800, lot more of 'em.
>>28694525
>implying a WWII bomb has better penetration than modern anti-ship missiles
Modern anti-ship missiles have been designed to be used against modern unarmored warships.
Only thing that would change if someone built a heavily armored warship is that countries would start do design bit heavier missiles that will fuck 'em up. Or just keep current missiles and replace conventional warheads with tactical nukes.
>>28694674
Greed of contractors, fucking expensive equipment like radars and missiles made by other contractors with operating under cost plus contracts. Massive R&D costs that are spread under small amount of produced ships. Ship itself is a small part of costs of warship.
Cargo ships are very similar to all other cargo ships, built in huge numbers using almost standard off the shelf parts like engines, navigation radars and so on.
this thread is hilarious. the autism is fucking palpable.
what is an LCAC and how is it used
>>28698849
"I don't understand the concept of adjusting for inflation: the post"
>>28700780
this desu senpai
>>28693814
>Why exactly are battleships considered obsolete
Because the aircraft carrier group is far more effective at projecting power, and between destroyers and subs they can cause way more damage than a battle ship.
>>28703490
yes because 1 aircraft carrir group is totally the same price as 1 modern battleship
correct?
>>28696358
Limiting factor is actually the cavitation of the propellers. Hull width/length, while important, is secondary, since the fuel in a nuclear powered ship is unlimited, unlike ships run on fuel oil, so you're not worried about fuel savings like merchant ships are.
>>28694396
Oh hey, you have a name. You must be someone important
>>28695955
This is how you do real amphibious operation. Not a contested landing, maneuvering warfare, google it. Anything else in the age of guided missile will reenact WW1 charges into machine guns. Only with tanks and ATGMs.
>>28703511
But a carrier group can strike locations miles apart at the same time. A carrier group is also faster and can stay out longer than battleships. The additional costs is outweighed by the benefit.
>>28702393
An LCAC is a hovercraft and it is used in peacetime.
>>28703675
no
You need a port to dock & unload ships on
And every place capable of that will have a garrison at minimum, and artillery.
That doesn't constitute "contested" landing, you overwhelm that small force with your superior force(which requires large numbers of tanks), then get your troops on the ground before the enemy counter attacks.
>>28693814
You'd have to weld a ball of destroyers onto it to give it any survivability, and it has no way to project force to protect itself like a carrier.
>>28703768
>>28703733
>WE CAN'T BUILD BATTLESHIPS
>THEY AREN'T CARRIERS !
>THEY WOULD NEED UNARMORED DESTROYERS TO PROTECT THEM, BECAUSE ONLY UNARMORED SHIPS CAN "SCREEN"
~_____~
I can't even talk to you "people"
>>28696092
She's cute though!
And why bother with good military technology when we can have an invincible battleship made out of ice cream and dreams!
>>28703787
>emoticons
battleship autist confirmed for reddit
>>28703750
>You need a port to dock & unload ships on
>i can't into amphibious warfare
>>28695955
You do know that there were Sherman's at d-day, right? Many sank, but at least a few made it.
Also, how the fuck is charging up a rather well defended beach while getting pounded by artillery and mg fire not "contested"
Would they have to get nuked for you to consider it contested?
Also
>what is amphibious landing on all those pacific islands
Arsenal ships when.
>>28702400
"I don't understand the concepts of economies of scale or wartime production: the post"
>>28703949
Because, as is modern amphibious doctrine, those landings were avoiding the well defended beaches/ports.
Those were the definition of what you could expect an "uncontested landing" to be.
Anyone pretending a small garrison in bunkers to be "contested" is also saying that amphibious invasions are impossible & will never occur.
>>28698849
That's actually including inflation, dickhead.
>>28704023
As soon as someone can seriously challenge us the way the USSR did.
So yeah, give the chinks a couple decades.
>>28693941
>Obviously the solution is building 20 "battleships" that are impervious to existing torpedos, mines, or AShM's.
alright, I'll bite. How do you intend to do that?
>>28695850
>only short range guns
There's this really neat thing called a Tomahawk cruise missile anon. We launched hundreds, literally hundreds, from the Iowas in the Gulf War.
And unlike the Burke's with their small guns, we were also able to use the 16" guns in that conflict too. I'm not sure how 16" guns are "close range" in comparison to the main battery of a Burke.
>>28703787
I'm saying that a carrier groups are far more versatile and effective than battleships. It has been LONG proven that when you dominate the AIR, you dominate the BATTLEFIELD. What good is a battleship compared to 20 armed fighter jets and a couple destroyers? A battle ship is one big target with lots of guns. The fighters are lots of targets with lots of guns.
They were already largely obsolete in WW2
But army memes die slowly
